7 ms·

I dont agree. Its actually the exact same thing. Before AWS you did not time share servers. Servers would be idle for long amounts of time if the capacity requi

by vchak1 7y ago

I dont agree. Its actually the exact same thing. Before AWS you did not time share servers. Servers would be idle for long amounts of time if the capacity requirements were spiky. You have the same situation here, but for work areas/meeting capabilities. Going from a single tenant fully leased capability to a shared workspace model allows for much higher utilization of the underlying assets.

neom 7y ago
With a cloud provider you have a lot more behind the scenes control over how an asset is subscribed and provisioned. Now, If we squeeze everyone into a wework with the lights off...
unreal37 7y ago
How quickly people forget. Before AWS, companies did IN FACT time share servers. The whole mainframe model was that IBM owned the server and you only rented a couple of hours on it. But before WeWork, people also rented office space. WeWork is not the first company to offer rentable office space to workers. They're not breaking new ground here.
- reallydude 7y ago
  > companies did IN FACT time share servers. Ok. It was so uncommon that I didn't encounter it for the 15 years preceding AWS. It's like pointing to a car that runs on vegetable oil. Yes there are IN FACT cars that run on vegetable oil, but nobody does it statistically. This is much different than the chance that a business (with income) is renting commercial space. Yes your local mom and pop pool company doesn't rent an office (and that's a non-trivial amount of businesses, as I've worked for some), but they aren't going to rent space in WeWork anyway.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - csande17 7y ago
    I got my start in web development by renting a shared-hosting account on https://www.dreamhost.com/ https://www.dreamhost.com/ .
    - freehunter 7y ago
      And Dreamhost predates AWS by a full 10 years.
    - mikeryan 7y ago
      Shared Hosting is a different model than that being discussed here. Shared hosting never scaled based on usage. To carry the analogy forward that was the same as renting a traditional office space where you had to guess what kind of capacity you needed, and had to limited access to services.
      - csande17 7y ago
        Shared hosting frequently scaled based on usage! They often had limited disk space, bandwidth, and sometimes even CPU cycles, and either you could pay to increase the limit or they'd bill you for overages. For an extreme example, here's a shared hosting company that's been around since 2002: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/services/hosting https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/services/hosting
        chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        That's not really the same thing as the AWS model, thoughm is it? A Linode or Digital Ocean VPS has multiple price levels, but "choose the price level that most closely matches the resources you think you're going to need" is not the same as "metered usage billing."
  - carterehsmith 7y ago
    >> companies did IN FACT time share servers. > Ok. It was so uncommon that I didn't encounter it for the 15 years preceding AWS. That just shows that.. you may not have enough experience. Time sharing was the norm before personal computers. Some good reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing
    - reallydude 7y ago
      After the computer revolution of the 80s and 90s, timesharing was reserved for only the largest mainframes (you might see a bunch of people huddled around a large cage in an Exodus colocation). I stand by the fact that it was exceedingly rare.
      - unreal37 7y ago
        Sorry, but this was the dominant computing model equivalent to renting servers at AWS. I'm not even talking about "website hosting at $5 per month". If a business wanted powerful machines, you rented them. Companies didn't own mainframes, generally. Your understanding of "exceedingly rare" is incorrect. The statement that AWS invented the rented server model is also incorrect.

by vchak1 7y ago

neom 7y ago

With a cloud provider you have a lot more behind the scenes control over how an asset is subscribed and provisioned. Now, If we squeeze everyone into a wework with the lights off...

unreal37 7y ago

How quickly people forget. Before AWS, companies did IN FACT time share servers. The whole mainframe model was that IBM owned the server and you only rented a couple of hours on it. But before WeWork, people also rented office space. WeWork is not the first company to offer rentable office space to workers. They're not breaking new ground here.

reallydude 7y ago
> companies did IN FACT time share servers. Ok. It was so uncommon that I didn't encounter it for the 15 years preceding AWS. It's like pointing to a car that runs on vegetable oil. Yes there are IN FACT cars that run on vegetable oil, but nobody does it statistically. This is much different than the chance that a business (with income) is renting commercial space. Yes your local mom and pop pool company doesn't rent an office (and that's a non-trivial amount of businesses, as I've worked for some), but they aren't going to rent space in WeWork anyway.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- csande17 7y ago
  I got my start in web development by renting a shared-hosting account on https://www.dreamhost.com/ https://www.dreamhost.com/ .
  - freehunter 7y ago
    And Dreamhost predates AWS by a full 10 years.
  - mikeryan 7y ago
    Shared Hosting is a different model than that being discussed here. Shared hosting never scaled based on usage. To carry the analogy forward that was the same as renting a traditional office space where you had to guess what kind of capacity you needed, and had to limited access to services.
    - csande17 7y ago
      Shared hosting frequently scaled based on usage! They often had limited disk space, bandwidth, and sometimes even CPU cycles, and either you could pay to increase the limit or they'd bill you for overages. For an extreme example, here's a shared hosting company that's been around since 2002: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/services/hosting https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/services/hosting
      - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        That's not really the same thing as the AWS model, thoughm is it? A Linode or Digital Ocean VPS has multiple price levels, but "choose the price level that most closely matches the resources you think you're going to need" is not the same as "metered usage billing."
- carterehsmith 7y ago
  >> companies did IN FACT time share servers. > Ok. It was so uncommon that I didn't encounter it for the 15 years preceding AWS. That just shows that.. you may not have enough experience. Time sharing was the norm before personal computers. Some good reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing
  - reallydude 7y ago
    After the computer revolution of the 80s and 90s, timesharing was reserved for only the largest mainframes (you might see a bunch of people huddled around a large cage in an Exodus colocation). I stand by the fact that it was exceedingly rare.
    - unreal37 7y ago
      Sorry, but this was the dominant computing model equivalent to renting servers at AWS. I'm not even talking about "website hosting at $5 per month". If a business wanted powerful machines, you rented them. Companies didn't own mainframes, generally. Your understanding of "exceedingly rare" is incorrect. The statement that AWS invented the rented server model is also incorrect.