3 ms·
Not really surprising. Plus it has to be a lot cheaper then Apple building their own.
by jacksmith21006 9y ago
Not really surprising. Plus it has to be a lot cheaper then Apple building their own.
- pmlnr 9y agoI don't think this is true long term. The cheapness of cloud applies when and where deploying otherwise complicated systems - eg. a hadoop cluster - can be done in matter of clicks, but for something simple - file storage - I'm finding it hard to believe that it's cheaper. However, in case of apple, geo distribution and locality is probably very important, which adds to the cost for sure; I'd still be surprised if long term own/rented hardware wouldn't be cheaper, than SaaS.
- 013a 9y agoEspecially for object storage. The scale where deploying your own object storage network gets cheaper than S3 is surprisingly small. Even handling your own equivalent of "intra-zonal redundancy" is easy. The main concerns arise in "how do you CDN that data to your customers" and "how do you gain redundancy beyond intra-zonal"; that's where S3/GCS gets more interesting.
- ddorian43 9y agoThere are other CDN beside aws/gcs.
- jjrh 9y agoWho is saying they aren't going this avenue? It would make sense to me that they would slowly increase their own infrastructure, testing it's reliability and over time decrease their reliance on third parties. Apple has enough money to tread carefully and roll things out slowly.
- dna_polymerase 9y agoCheaper? Bullshit. Look at Dropbox, they saved $75M since they moved out of AWS. If you are a big player like Apple, the cloud is a horrible choice.
- HillaryBriss 9y agomaybe Apple's DC division charges the rest of the company the same price per terabyte of storage space as Apple charges macintosh customers