3 ms·

We don't use most of the platform but the stuff we do use is rock solid (VPC, EC2, RDS, Route53, S3 etc). I do sometimes wonder what the point is for half the s

We don't use most of the platform but the stuff we do use is rock solid (VPC, EC2, RDS, Route53, S3 etc). I do sometimes wonder what the point is for half the stuff they release. What I do know about GCP is they had a production bug in their tooling that was breaking everything for literally 100s of customers and they never even bothered replying to the bug report on their support forums. That experience along with the general modus operandi of shutting things down that don't further their surveillance capitalism business model means I won't be trying them again.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bmurphy1976 6y ago
> I do sometimes wonder what the point is for half the stuff they release. I'm convinced they mvp every possible idea because it makes their platform more sticky. The more services you use, the harder it is to leave them for something better. The problem with that is you get 100 half dead zombie services and it's really hard to know which services are actually supported and which aren't. It's the Amazon equivalent of Google creating 10 different messenger applications only Amazon never kills an old service, they just let it rot forever.
- freehunter 6y ago
  It almost seems to me (as an outsider) that Amazon has a policy that any tool they build internally or for a specific customer also has to be offered to the public on AWS. Like their managed satellite service or any number of things that make you say “I’ll bet some critical AWS thing was the first customer of this hyper-specific product”.
  - tidepod12 6y ago
    AFAIK this is pretty spot on. I don't know if it's "policy" or what, but based on talking with AWS account managers, AWS does not often (or ever) create custom AWS services/products for individual customers. They do however let customers submit feature requests, and then let customers lean heavily on AWS to implement those feature requests in the public AWS services. I think this is what leads to a lot of MVP-type services. A large customer clamors for some individual niche feature, AWS implements a MVP version of it, and then the team moves on to the next feature request (which might be for a completely different service, leaving the MVP in a perpetual MVP state).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bmurphy1976 6y ago

> I do sometimes wonder what the point is for half the stuff they release. I'm convinced they mvp every possible idea because it makes their platform more sticky. The more services you use, the harder it is to leave them for something better. The problem with that is you get 100 half dead zombie services and it's really hard to know which services are actually supported and which aren't. It's the Amazon equivalent of Google creating 10 different messenger applications only Amazon never kills an old service, they just let it rot forever.

freehunter 6y ago
It almost seems to me (as an outsider) that Amazon has a policy that any tool they build internally or for a specific customer also has to be offered to the public on AWS. Like their managed satellite service or any number of things that make you say “I’ll bet some critical AWS thing was the first customer of this hyper-specific product”.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  AFAIK this is pretty spot on. I don't know if it's "policy" or what, but based on talking with AWS account managers, AWS does not often (or ever) create custom AWS services/products for individual customers. They do however let customers submit feature requests, and then let customers lean heavily on AWS to implement those feature requests in the public AWS services. I think this is what leads to a lot of MVP-type services. A large customer clamors for some individual niche feature, AWS implements a MVP version of it, and then the team moves on to the next feature request (which might be for a completely different service, leaving the MVP in a perpetual MVP state).