3 ms·

If the unknown company is offering everything you just listed, will the unknown company be considered?

PeterisP 9y ago
An unknown company by definition is unable to offer what they just listed, namely, that they know and trust that all of that really is there at the quality they expect. It may claim these things and might actually have them, but any company or sysadmin must spend significant time, effort and thus cost to investigate and verify if that really is true, at least until they have established a solid reputation and aren't an unknown company anymore. And there should be some reason to spend this cost in reviewing and considering them if more established options are available; if other factors are equal, then the more widely used service is better for various reasons, so if they aren't promising some nontrivial improvement over AWS, why bother?
filleduchaos 9y ago
If the company does offer all that, how are they still unknown?
lev99 9y ago
No. The things I listed are reasons I am hesitant to work with a company I am unfamiliar with. To be considered you have to have everything listed, and be clearly better than AWS. Better shouldn't be defined as cheaper, but by a higher quality product. It's hard to define that without knowing exactly what service you provide.
rocqua 9y ago
Not OP, but unknown companies are unkown quantities. They might be better than AWS, but they also might just be worse. It is the very known-ness of AWS that gives it the 'seal of basic quality'. To compete, the unknown company would probably need a reputation for excellence. Note that it takes a reputation excellence to beat AWS not because AWS is excellent, but to ensure that even if the reputation is off by a little, the company still isn't shite. (there is also the bonus of excellence on its own being an enticing reason to swap)
BillinghamJ 9y ago
If it was just “as good as” AWS, then no it wouldn’t be considered - easier to just expand the usage of the existing product. If it is materially better, then yes, but the barrier to entry for setting it up, signing yet another SaaS contract, etc. is high. Most likely would still go with AWS unless there was a really good reason not to.

An unknown company by definition is unable to offer what they just listed, namely, that they know and trust that all of that really is there at the quality they expect. It may claim these things and might actually have them, but any company or sysadmin must spend significant time, effort and thus cost to investigate and verify if that really is true, at least until they have established a solid reputation and aren't an unknown company anymore. And there should be some reason to spend this cost in reviewing and considering them if more established options are available; if other factors are equal, then the more widely used service is better for various reasons, so if they aren't promising some nontrivial improvement over AWS, why bother?

filleduchaos 9y ago

If the company does offer all that, how are they still unknown?

lev99 9y ago

No. The things I listed are reasons I am hesitant to work with a company I am unfamiliar with. To be considered you have to have everything listed, and be clearly better than AWS. Better shouldn't be defined as cheaper, but by a higher quality product. It's hard to define that without knowing exactly what service you provide.

rocqua 9y ago

Not OP, but unknown companies are unkown quantities. They might be better than AWS, but they also might just be worse. It is the very known-ness of AWS that gives it the 'seal of basic quality'. To compete, the unknown company would probably need a reputation for excellence. Note that it takes a reputation excellence to beat AWS not because AWS is excellent, but to ensure that even if the reputation is off by a little, the company still isn't shite. (there is also the bonus of excellence on its own being an enticing reason to swap)

BillinghamJ 9y ago

If it was just “as good as” AWS, then no it wouldn’t be considered - easier to just expand the usage of the existing product. If it is materially better, then yes, but the barrier to entry for setting it up, signing yet another SaaS contract, etc. is high. Most likely would still go with AWS unless there was a really good reason not to.