3 ms·

> We continue to use Heroku as our main web platform. Despite its premium cost over AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, Heroku’s built-in deployment and configuration

> We continue to use Heroku as our main web platform. Despite its premium cost over AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, Heroku’s built-in deployment and configuration tools allow our team to move faster, more confidently, and more reliably. This is just bullshit, really. I'd buy this excuse from a service like Snapchat/Facebook in their early years, but unsplash is nothing that changes dramatically all the time. Every single point in their analysis just shows how they like to waste money. Imgix as the main image CDN? Start serving images using thumbor and a cheap CDN like BunnyCDN or KeyCDN. They could easily save 60% on their monthly bill. That would enable them to hire 1 or 2 engineers capable of maintaining a few dozen servers on AWS, DO or GCP.

forrestthewoods 7y ago
> They could easily save 60% on their monthly bill. That would enable them to hire 1 or 2 engineers capable of maintaining a few dozen servers on AWS, DO or GCP. If they reduce their bill and then hire engineers to do the same job they've gained nothing other than an increased headcount for no discernible benefit.
- manigandham 7y ago
  If they're not really adding features then its the same staff. Not every change needs a new developer.
- indigodaddy 7y ago
  I think what the repliers missed from OC was that using that extra money for devops people will then allow even more savings after having consolidated down from Heroku to AWS/GCP/DO etc.
bigiain 7y ago
1 or 2 engineers is not enough to fully resource a 24x7x365 on-call roster. Sure, $42k/month seems like a lot of money, but proposing to hire 2 engineers to replace that seems naive to me. If you need to build/run/maintain a service that doesn't stay dark all weekend if something breaks at 6pm on a Friday, you need more than two people who're prepared to answer their phone on weekends.
nemothekid 7y ago
>They could easily save 60% on their monthly bill. That would enable them to hire 1 or 2 engineers capable of maintaining a few dozen servers on AWS, DO or GCP. So blow up their currently working infra to save 40k to reallocate that 40k to build a replacement? How does that make sense? This idea seems penny wise, pound foolish - run the numbers yourself.

forrestthewoods 7y ago

> They could easily save 60% on their monthly bill. That would enable them to hire 1 or 2 engineers capable of maintaining a few dozen servers on AWS, DO or GCP. If they reduce their bill and then hire engineers to do the same job they've gained nothing other than an increased headcount for no discernible benefit.

manigandham 7y ago
If they're not really adding features then its the same staff. Not every change needs a new developer.
indigodaddy 7y ago
I think what the repliers missed from OC was that using that extra money for devops people will then allow even more savings after having consolidated down from Heroku to AWS/GCP/DO etc.

bigiain 7y ago

1 or 2 engineers is not enough to fully resource a 24x7x365 on-call roster. Sure, $42k/month seems like a lot of money, but proposing to hire 2 engineers to replace that seems naive to me. If you need to build/run/maintain a service that doesn't stay dark all weekend if something breaks at 6pm on a Friday, you need more than two people who're prepared to answer their phone on weekends.

nemothekid 7y ago

>They could easily save 60% on their monthly bill. That would enable them to hire 1 or 2 engineers capable of maintaining a few dozen servers on AWS, DO or GCP. So blow up their currently working infra to save 40k to reallocate that 40k to build a replacement? How does that make sense? This idea seems penny wise, pound foolish - run the numbers yourself.