4 ms·

One of the things with Lambda etc is that while they are cost-effective (and flexible) when a business starts, they also can also lead to lock-in (not just with

One of the things with Lambda etc is that while they are cost-effective (and flexible) when a business starts, they also can also lead to lock-in (not just with the serverless functions themselves, but queueing services etc). A few years down the track, a business may find themselves spending quite a lot of money with Amazon, and being unable to move away without a major re-engineering effort.

giancarlostoro 8y ago
The useful thing is that in the case of at least Azure Functions, their back-end is open source. There's plenty of open source alternatives, so you can migrate to a bare metal hosted alternative if it brings down costs and maintains the same level of scalability. This also emphasizes the need for cloud agnostic frameworks.
tnolet 8y ago
Well, at least you have a business. I find vendor lock in to be about the lowest priority on my list. Also, the lock in is pretty exaggerated. Just make sure to keep business logic separate from the cloud plumbing, as per the OP example.
- jlangenauer 8y ago
  It's not just about separating business logic from "cloud plumbing". It's building you infrastructure around services that cannot simply be replaced elsewhere, or cannot be replaced easily - if you want to move from AWS Kinesis to (say) Kafka for message broking, or from DynamoDB to Postgres. There is a reason Amazon gives away a lot of free credits to startups, and it's the same reason drug dealers give away free samples. If the economics are right, and growth is strong then you might be okay - but you also don't want to find yourself with a $100k/month AWS bill in a startup with only $2m of annual revenue. (P.S Greetings from the other side of the Spree. I love La Lucha on your street!)
jsty 8y ago
Then again if you're aiming at high growth, you'll be looking at some degree of re-architecting at least every few years anyway to cope with the 10x system problem. If using FaaS can be a quick bandaid solution to get you up and running without worrying about having to design your own equivalent of the fail whale, then a certain degree of lock-in might be worth paying.
- falcolas 8y ago
  A couple of years down the road, however, will give you both personnel and money to handle a re-architecture. FAAS (Or, MSA) adds a ton of complexity right off the bat. Why take on that risk when you have little money and less time?
scarface74 8y ago
When that time comes, hopefully you have found product market fit and are capitalized well enough to make the move - see Dropbox.
matwood 8y ago
Every startup wants to reach the point where vendor lock-in is an issue. IMO, it's a useless boogeyman. If vendor lock-in lets the start up move faster, find the business, and make it 2-3 years down the road, they should pick vendor lock-in every single time.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

The useful thing is that in the case of at least Azure Functions, their back-end is open source. There's plenty of open source alternatives, so you can migrate to a bare metal hosted alternative if it brings down costs and maintains the same level of scalability. This also emphasizes the need for cloud agnostic frameworks.

tnolet 8y ago

Well, at least you have a business. I find vendor lock in to be about the lowest priority on my list. Also, the lock in is pretty exaggerated. Just make sure to keep business logic separate from the cloud plumbing, as per the OP example.

jlangenauer 8y ago
It's not just about separating business logic from "cloud plumbing". It's building you infrastructure around services that cannot simply be replaced elsewhere, or cannot be replaced easily - if you want to move from AWS Kinesis to (say) Kafka for message broking, or from DynamoDB to Postgres. There is a reason Amazon gives away a lot of free credits to startups, and it's the same reason drug dealers give away free samples. If the economics are right, and growth is strong then you might be okay - but you also don't want to find yourself with a $100k/month AWS bill in a startup with only $2m of annual revenue. (P.S Greetings from the other side of the Spree. I love La Lucha on your street!)

jsty 8y ago

Then again if you're aiming at high growth, you'll be looking at some degree of re-architecting at least every few years anyway to cope with the 10x system problem. If using FaaS can be a quick bandaid solution to get you up and running without worrying about having to design your own equivalent of the fail whale, then a certain degree of lock-in might be worth paying.

falcolas 8y ago
A couple of years down the road, however, will give you both personnel and money to handle a re-architecture. FAAS (Or, MSA) adds a ton of complexity right off the bat. Why take on that risk when you have little money and less time?

scarface74 8y ago

When that time comes, hopefully you have found product market fit and are capitalized well enough to make the move - see Dropbox.

matwood 8y ago

Every startup wants to reach the point where vendor lock-in is an issue. IMO, it's a useless boogeyman. If vendor lock-in lets the start up move faster, find the business, and make it 2-3 years down the road, they should pick vendor lock-in every single time.