3 ms·

I think you may not appreciate how much $100 a month is for many people around the globe.

ghaff 7y ago
That may be. But, then, you're definitely in the category of your time isn't really worth anything and screwing around for a few days doing DIY on software/hardware/etc. is a better solution than paying someone to do something for you. That's fine but you're really describing paid support generally.
- Swizec 7y ago
  This right here I always hear people on the internet talking about AWS being crazy expensive, but from SFBA it looks really damn cheap. Would I rather give $thousands to AWS or $hundredthousands to an internal specialist who’s likely gonna say my company is too small and boring to keep them interested anyway? AWS wind that math every day. And that’s the market they target. Why wouldnt they?
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Part of it is that people see the AWS or support bill or consultant bill or whatever. But they don't really see the cost of DIY whether initial cost or ongoing support. The cost of build (on many dimensions) vs. buy is often underestimated. That's not to say you should never build--no, you shouldn't use AWS for everything--but it's important to understand the real costs.
  - goatherders 7y ago
    AWS is extremely expensive once you get to any meaningful size. If you save on infrastructure you pay for it on enterprise support, engineers or consultants and/or bandwidth. I LIKE AWS. I think it can be a great choice for many companies and use-cases. But the idea that AWS is firmly everyone, that it's less expensive for everyone when you factor in the TCO, simply isnt correct.
    - cosmiccatnap 7y ago
      This just isn't true, in fact quite the opposite. If you just have a website you are working on aws is complex and expensive. When you need to handle it at scale then AWS is far better than other clouds and an order of magnitude cheaper than rolling your own racks.
    - Swizec 7y ago
      > But the idea that AWS is firmly everyone, that it's less expensive for everyone when you factor in the TCO, simply isnt correct. Correct. I specifically said it’s perfect if your labor cost is higher than your AWS cost Another good case is indie hackers whose project likely won’t ever make it out of the free tier
    - abofh 7y ago
      What's meaningful? It'll cost you a half million to build a full rack, power it and give it connectivity for a year. That's a lot of spot instances if you don't have a constant load
      - snark42 7y ago
        > It'll cost you a half million to build a full rack, power it and give it connectivity for a year. For $1500/mo you can get half rack (5Kv) and 50 Mbps internet. A couple $5k switches and 6-8 10k servers and you're well under $125k, plus you probably don't need $10k servers or $5k switches and can find cheaper hosting. I realize you said a full rack, but that's probably overkill and could be done for $350k or less. Once you have the servers/switches your fixed costs are relatively low.
nkozyra 7y ago
For a person anywhere on earth? Sure. But 99.99999% of those people don't need on-demand cloud hosting support. But for a business that requires cloud hosting with support? There aren't many places on the planet where $100 is a prohibitive cost for a business that's willing to spend at minimum that much for hosting. In short, it's the cost of doing business.
xtracto 7y ago
I ran the tech team of a startup in a third world country (bullet lending $100 bucks to people) we were cheap and it was always a problem to convince finance to buy technology instead of throwing more cheap labour. Still, those $100 monthly we paid for aws support were worth their weight in gold.

That may be. But, then, you're definitely in the category of your time isn't really worth anything and screwing around for a few days doing DIY on software/hardware/etc. is a better solution than paying someone to do something for you. That's fine but you're really describing paid support generally.

Swizec 7y ago
This right here I always hear people on the internet talking about AWS being crazy expensive, but from SFBA it looks really damn cheap. Would I rather give $thousands to AWS or $hundredthousands to an internal specialist who’s likely gonna say my company is too small and boring to keep them interested anyway? AWS wind that math every day. And that’s the market they target. Why wouldnt they?
- ghaff 7y ago
  Part of it is that people see the AWS or support bill or consultant bill or whatever. But they don't really see the cost of DIY whether initial cost or ongoing support. The cost of build (on many dimensions) vs. buy is often underestimated. That's not to say you should never build--no, you shouldn't use AWS for everything--but it's important to understand the real costs.
- goatherders 7y ago
  AWS is extremely expensive once you get to any meaningful size. If you save on infrastructure you pay for it on enterprise support, engineers or consultants and/or bandwidth. I LIKE AWS. I think it can be a great choice for many companies and use-cases. But the idea that AWS is firmly everyone, that it's less expensive for everyone when you factor in the TCO, simply isnt correct.
  - cosmiccatnap 7y ago
    This just isn't true, in fact quite the opposite. If you just have a website you are working on aws is complex and expensive. When you need to handle it at scale then AWS is far better than other clouds and an order of magnitude cheaper than rolling your own racks.
  - Swizec 7y ago
    > But the idea that AWS is firmly everyone, that it's less expensive for everyone when you factor in the TCO, simply isnt correct. Correct. I specifically said it’s perfect if your labor cost is higher than your AWS cost Another good case is indie hackers whose project likely won’t ever make it out of the free tier
  - abofh 7y ago
    What's meaningful? It'll cost you a half million to build a full rack, power it and give it connectivity for a year. That's a lot of spot instances if you don't have a constant load
    - snark42 7y ago
      > It'll cost you a half million to build a full rack, power it and give it connectivity for a year. For $1500/mo you can get half rack (5Kv) and 50 Mbps internet. A couple $5k switches and 6-8 10k servers and you're well under $125k, plus you probably don't need $10k servers or $5k switches and can find cheaper hosting. I realize you said a full rack, but that's probably overkill and could be done for $350k or less. Once you have the servers/switches your fixed costs are relatively low.

nkozyra 7y ago

For a person anywhere on earth? Sure. But 99.99999% of those people don't need on-demand cloud hosting support. But for a business that requires cloud hosting with support? There aren't many places on the planet where $100 is a prohibitive cost for a business that's willing to spend at minimum that much for hosting. In short, it's the cost of doing business.

xtracto 7y ago

I ran the tech team of a startup in a third world country (bullet lending $100 bucks to people) we were cheap and it was always a problem to convince finance to buy technology instead of throwing more cheap labour. Still, those $100 monthly we paid for aws support were worth their weight in gold.