4 ms·
> People are happy to pay AWS Many of them are not. We have serious vendor lock-in now, where a very few companies are gatekeepers to almost any business that
by jamwt 6y ago
> People are happy to pay AWS
Many of them are not.
We have serious vendor lock-in now, where a very few companies are gatekeepers to almost any business that runs on the internet.
And their margins are _enormous_ on this business. It ends up costing much, much more to pay them to run our machines for us.
And increasingly, the expertise to do this is being consolidated in these companies, so the talent available to pursue any other way is diminishing as new grads never learn about the magic places their code runs.
The reliability outcomes are nearly the same, despite the deferral to their expertise.
Labor savings b/c you don't to learn about provisioning your own machines? Not much. AWS is so sophisticated you need to develop a nearly equivalent amount of (non-portable) expertise to actually operate it well. Remember, the alternative isn't just rack your own, it's... dedicated hosting! And lots of other options with less lock-in and more standards.
It's sort of frightening how complicit the broader technology industry is in this power consolidation.
- justicezyx 6y agoYou beat vendor lock in by standardization. Vendors refuses to take part in standardization if they absolutely have the leverage. Remember Amazon's reluctance in joining the CNCF and container groups? By stating you are not happy, Amazon is perfectly ready to do what ever they can to please you, ad stated in their "customer obsession" (and I assure that that statement is as sincere as any human stating any commitment). But back to the point, people in mass market primarily are no longer interested in managing machines, let alone building themselves.