4 ms·
Depends on what you mean by scale. If scale means providing services globally to many jurisdictions, you're going to have to start doing the things that the big
by localhost 9y ago
Depends on what you mean by scale. If scale means providing services globally to many jurisdictions, you're going to have to start doing the things that the big players so like putting data centers in specific geographies (e.g., EU, China). That means getting real estate, power etc. At that point I think the scale tips in the other direction where it's now more costly for you to "scale". So, cheap at the small end, cheap at the high end and expensive in the middle (cloud).
- owenmarshall 9y agoBingo. From the perspective of a Fortune (checks list) 15 company: AWS saves us a fortune. No facilities costs all over the world with power/real estate/lawyers to handle local laws. No data center engineers across the globe. A solid discount on list. Consistent bills (thanks to judicious RI buys) and servers that are available in minutes - not weeks (have you ever seen enterprise IT ticketing practices?!) If we had two orders of magnitude fewer employees/servers/locations AWS wouldn't make sense. But at this scale nothing else makes sense.
- hueving 9y agoIf you have reserved instance style workloads and aws is saving you money, it sounds like your private data centers were just grossly mismanaged or you have a negligible compute load. AWS was likely just a way to overhaul inefficiencies in a legacy IT org. Someone will be able to do the same thing in 5 years moving you from AWS back to self-hosted.
- ubernetes 9y agoPeople really need to stop. There is no Fortune 15. I get that your e-peen needs all the help it can get, but this is like a grown adult giving their age as 41 "and 3 quarters".