3 ms·

The problem is not that they give incentives. It's why they give incentives. Why do they want marketshare? It's simple, they're a business, they want to milk yo

The problem is not that they give incentives. It's why they give incentives. Why do they want marketshare? It's simple, they're a business, they want to milk you for money. And like their forebears they understand well that the more they lock you into their solutions the more likely you are to keep paying for money even when you're mad at them for something they inevitably do that you don't agree with.

tidepod12 6y ago
Oh the horror of a business that wants to make money off of the services they are offering! Do you work for a company that just gives away all of their services and products for free, or...?
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  You're a funny guy. Nothing is wrong with a business making money. What's wrong with Amazon is that they're going to make extra money through extortionate business practices and you're going to be shit out of luck looking for an alternative after they crush all of their competitors in ways that are not healthy to a functioning market.
  - tidepod12 6y ago
    The pricing (or lack of pricing, actually, since the only thing mentioned in the post is that people get 5TB/mo of transfer for free and AWS makes no money directly from this) is actually less costly than Docker Hub's new model. Are you telling me that Docker Hub is extortionate, too? Come on.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      Also once you have 5TB/mo in container transfer bandwidth, you probably can spare a couple employees to set up your own solution if you can't use AWS. You can't realistically use that much in a smallish company.
- ralph87 6y ago
  Now you've lurched from denial to some sarcastic realist approach where we're shamed for suggesting it is even appropriate to be concerned about the issue. Please consider reviewing the posting guidelines
lovehashbrowns 6y ago
1. The company I work for is already fully locked into AWS with years of work needed to go anywhere else. 2. Duh, this is an incentive to move to their cloud. Duh duh duh. Basically everything any corporation does is in some way intended to keep you locked into their system. 3. The company that I work for pays Amazon A LOT of money every year. As in, millions a year and almost certainly a month, too. If this allows us to pull images without limits, avoid having a separate billing agreement with DockerHub, and provides faster speeds from the regions where we're deployed in AWS, then this is a compelling offering from Amazon and my company would likely consider it.
- freehunter 6y ago
  >fully locked into AWS with years of work needed to go anywhere else That’s the thing that I don’t understand... unless you’re treating cloud vendors like a traditional on-premise data center, you’ve already got lock in. And if you do treat them like data centers, it’s going to cost a lot more than just running a data center. And if you decide to switch from AWS to Azure or GCP or Oracle, what happens to all your engineers who specialize in AWS? Are they going to forget everything they know and go learn something brand new and start from scratch? Or are they going to just quit and find a job working with AWS that they already know? You’re already locked in to every tech decision you make, and if you make the decision to not be locked in, you’re locked in to only vendors who don’t have lock-in which is a form of lock-in itself. Either way you’re gonna be paying a lot more than your competitors who are just focused on running their business. It’s wishy-washy lack of decision making. No one cares about your tech stack, just pick one and get back to running your business.

tidepod12 6y ago

Oh the horror of a business that wants to make money off of the services they are offering! Do you work for a company that just gives away all of their services and products for free, or...?

ethanwillis 6y ago
You're a funny guy. Nothing is wrong with a business making money. What's wrong with Amazon is that they're going to make extra money through extortionate business practices and you're going to be shit out of luck looking for an alternative after they crush all of their competitors in ways that are not healthy to a functioning market.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  The pricing (or lack of pricing, actually, since the only thing mentioned in the post is that people get 5TB/mo of transfer for free and AWS makes no money directly from this) is actually less costly than Docker Hub's new model. Are you telling me that Docker Hub is extortionate, too? Come on.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    Also once you have 5TB/mo in container transfer bandwidth, you probably can spare a couple employees to set up your own solution if you can't use AWS. You can't realistically use that much in a smallish company.
ralph87 6y ago
Now you've lurched from denial to some sarcastic realist approach where we're shamed for suggesting it is even appropriate to be concerned about the issue. Please consider reviewing the posting guidelines

lovehashbrowns 6y ago

1. The company I work for is already fully locked into AWS with years of work needed to go anywhere else. 2. Duh, this is an incentive to move to their cloud. Duh duh duh. Basically everything any corporation does is in some way intended to keep you locked into their system. 3. The company that I work for pays Amazon A LOT of money every year. As in, millions a year and almost certainly a month, too. If this allows us to pull images without limits, avoid having a separate billing agreement with DockerHub, and provides faster speeds from the regions where we're deployed in AWS, then this is a compelling offering from Amazon and my company would likely consider it.

freehunter 6y ago
>fully locked into AWS with years of work needed to go anywhere else That’s the thing that I don’t understand... unless you’re treating cloud vendors like a traditional on-premise data center, you’ve already got lock in. And if you do treat them like data centers, it’s going to cost a lot more than just running a data center. And if you decide to switch from AWS to Azure or GCP or Oracle, what happens to all your engineers who specialize in AWS? Are they going to forget everything they know and go learn something brand new and start from scratch? Or are they going to just quit and find a job working with AWS that they already know? You’re already locked in to every tech decision you make, and if you make the decision to not be locked in, you’re locked in to only vendors who don’t have lock-in which is a form of lock-in itself. Either way you’re gonna be paying a lot more than your competitors who are just focused on running their business. It’s wishy-washy lack of decision making. No one cares about your tech stack, just pick one and get back to running your business.