3 ms·
They seem to have exactly positioned themselves in a spot that will ensure that nobody ever uses them. Cloud databases are what you reluctantly use when you re
by jasonkester 16y ago
They seem to have exactly positioned themselves in a spot that will ensure that nobody ever uses them.
Cloud databases are what you reluctantly use when you realize that your thing is going to need to scale big. Database.com is prohibitively expensive for anything but tiny datasets and low traffic. Oops.
So while it would be great for running your in-house inventory application, there's no compelling reason to migrate off your existing (possibly free) relational database infrastructure.
And while it would be be great to be able to handle tons of requests to tons of data at the low latency they quote, you can do that on AWS for 1/1000 the cost.
- yxhuvud 16y agoGreat? 300 ms in response time would make it slow as dirt in many many situations.
- al_james 16y ago...but perfectly acceptable in many cases.
- rbranson 16y agoThe problem with comparing AWS to SalesForce is that SalesForces' prices are negotiable, often with very deep volume discounts. AWS pricing is completely upfront, which I prefer, but... just sayin'
- risotto 16y agoMaybe it's too expensive for a cash strapped startup, but SalesForce is Enterprise with a capital E. This product is very powerful and is going to be extremely lucrative, but won't ever be interesting to most of us hackers.
- synnik 16y agoSalesforce targets enterprises, not startups. The users of this service will almost certainly be their existing customer base, for whom it is an add-on to existing services... not a new major platform and expense.