3 ms·
"didn't cut corners and are using servers they control" That seems a little out of place. If a lot of companies fold, demand for compute resources would go do
by klochner 16y ago
"didn't cut corners and are using servers they control"
That seems a little out of place. If a lot of companies fold, demand for compute resources would go down, putting downward pressure on pricing.
And the "free" web services are functioning more as a business prototyping tool than as a long term infrastructure strategy.
Finally, no one hosts their servers at facebook, so it feels like the op is conflating a few concepts and weakening whatever point he was trying to make.
- HerraBRE 16y agoThere is a difference between basing your business on commodity offerings (say, Linux vservers) where there is active competition, and basing your business on a walled garden of harder to replace services (say, Appengine, or S3, or Twitter or Facebook). Appengine is hard to replace, but there are some immature alternatives out there. Same for S3. If you rely on Twitter or Facebook, you are completely locked in. His point is, the more proprietary the stack you rely on, the more likely you are to get the thumbscrews when people start more aggressively monetizing - or the more likely you are to lose everything if the tech you are building on disappears or locks you out.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- davewiner 16y agoHeh it seems out of place cause you quoted it out of context. Sometimes it's so easy to debug these things. :-)
- klochner 16y agoHey dave - Didn't mean to take it out of context, definitely a mis-reading on my end. To be fair, "servers you control" is a little tangential to the real issue, which is an open ecosystem, and "cutting corners" doesn't really work with that metaphor.