7 ms·
Those numbers actually make the AWS instances a shoo-in for my current development purposes. The cost of housing and managing a unit of hardware is nonzero. Ac
by inopinatus 6y ago
Those numbers actually make the AWS instances a shoo-in for my current development purposes.
The cost of housing and managing a unit of hardware is nonzero. Actuals vary wildly by location, purposes, and sector; but if everyone can get their heads out of the hobbyist-tinkerer mindset for a moment and consider that lifetime TCO is a real and meaningful consideration for businesses, then the component that isn't buying/leasing the server itself is typically several hundred dollars, per physical unit, per annum. Public clouds don't nullify all of it, but they swing the needle dramatically.
Since my duty cycle for a Mac Mini is rather less than 20%, the economics even of on-demand instances immediately make sense, and having it inside the VPC boundary without hybridising is gravy on the meat since I'm consuming several other AWS services besides.
These two factors (lifetime TCO and scale-down) are the economic foundation of the value proposition of utility computing. The "I can build that in my garage for cheaper" crew aren't wrong, but they're missing the point.
Putting on my sometime cloud infrastructure product manager's hat, long-term observers of service pricing may also observe the common enough pattern of starting a new product with a relatively high price, one that selects for early adopters and other price-insensitive (and, you hope, glitch/MVP-tolerant) customer segments, then gradually ratcheting prices down in order to estimate (amongst other things) the price elasticity of demand. It's naturally easier to get cheaper over time, than go the other way. In this AWS's position on compute is congruent to any other commodity merchant⁽¹⁾ with the luxury of being able to withstand potential losses on a single product line. For most EC2 instance types I'd expect they have a very good model of the price sensitivities, but mac1 is undoubtedly a unique platform with elevated uncertainty in the price parameters.
Which is my long-winded way of saying, it'll likely be cheaper in a few months.
-----------------------
⁽¹⁾ yes, yes, just like a fruit shop, very droll.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago> Since my duty cycle for a Mac Mini is rather less than 20%, the economics even of on-demand instances immediately make sense, Are you factoring in the 24 hour minimum AWS charges for a Mac Mini?
- pbalau 6y agoIf you are comparing buying the device + the other costs of running the device vs renting from aws, then the 24h upfront is not an issue. You could even consider renting for a year or more.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y agoCertainly it's going to depend on your use case. On my team, we just have a Mac Mini sitting under someone's desk to do stuff that requires a Mac. It gets used for about 1 hour every day for a daily build. For us, AWS's offering doesn't make financial sense. Even if we were to switch to only doing a weekly build, it wouldn't be worth it, as that would still cost around $1,250/year.
- inopinatus 6y agoYes. The details don't particularly matter, but broadly, it's periodic QA of a couple of apps & tools vs Safari, vs OSX, and vs homebrew. Not CI/CD. OSX seems more prone to bitroot regressions than Windows or Linux, I suppose Apple have a "you're with us, or you're against us" attitude and this even applies to base OS backwards (in)compatibility.
- patrec 6y ago> Since my duty cycle for a Mac Mini is rather less than 20%, the economics even of on-demand instances immediately make sense, What are you doing with macs that naturally works out at ~one continuous 24h period per work-week on average? Turn on CI once a week Thursday midnight, and no one goes into the weekend before all test failures are fixed?
- scns 6y agoMaybe start the Mac CI monday morning, and fix errors then? Would lead to a more enjoyable weekend IMHO.
- siliconmountain 6y agoYa, weekly builds on Monday morning for a gaming company with multiple teams makes sense. They could slice it up across their teams even for better TCO
- academia_hack 6y agoI'm no expert, but I'm stunned that it costs more than $10,000 a year to connect a single computer to a corporate network such that AWS Macs become cost competitive. I've never worked in a big enterprise organization but I just can't wrap my head around the inefficiency required to make that math work.
- NineStarPoint 6y agoI could see it being reasonable if a medium to large companies entire infrastructure was cloud based, and they only needed a handful of mac minis. Alternatively, a company who needed them only a handful of days a year for some reason I can’t immediately think of. Otherwise I agree. 24 hour minimum removes immediate scaling as an option, and for anyone who already has their own infrastructure the cost is prohibitively high. My hope would be that with time, at the very least the 24 hour minimum would eventually be removed, and ideally the price will come down too.
- reaperducer 6y agoa company who needed them only a handful of days a year for some reason I can’t immediately think of Perhaps it's good for render farms. Instead of building a giant render farm that sits idle between productions, you spin up a render farm only when you need one.
- nitrogen 6y agoAren't most renderers compatible with Linux or Windows, where you can get much larger instances?
- minhazm 6y agoIt would be cheaper if you had your own data center already or an office space sufficiently large to store these Mac Mini's. But if you have neither and are operating out of say AWS, then it becomes more expensive to rent space to put these Mac Mini's into, especially if you don't need it all the time. In that way it can actually be "cheaper", because it's compared to the cost of building out the infrastructure required to support your own hardware.
- mumblemumble 6y agoI'm fascinated by this thing where people tacitly assume that employee time is free. Even people who like to actually receive their paychecks. The money spent paying someone to set up a Mac server somewhere else, getting that somewhere else connected to your AWS networks, and ensuring that connection is secure, and generally integrating it into your existing cloud devops infrastructure (or, perhaps more expensively, not integrating it into your existing devops infrastructure), would, I'm guessing, be horrendously expensive compared to the premium Amazon charges on a relatively turnkey solution for use cases such as, "We need to run the occasional Darwin build."
- hugey010 6y agoI've maintained mac mini farms and it is both time consuming and expensive. If it were reasonable to setup and maintain Macs for devops, these offerings probably wouldn't exist.
- kingnothing 6y agoThey would still exist. When a company's entire shop is set up in AWS they want to keep it that way, not buy physical hardware to install in their office, create a VPN to make build pipelines, worry about physical security, etc.
- nucleardog 6y agoYeah, the premium here would be easily justified for us in having a mac colocated with the rest of our infra and it being easy to provision and manage through CloudFormation/APIs just like the rest of our infrastructure.
- dfabulich 6y ago> Since my duty cycle for a Mac Mini is rather less than 20%, the economics even of on-demand instances immediately make sense MacStadium's prices are "rather less than 20%" of AWS's prices. To make sense, AWS would have to be comparable to MacStadium's pricing. And don't forget the 24-hour minimum. If your duty cycle for a Mac Mini is only 20% per day every weekday, well, you can't rent a Mac Mini for less than a 24 hour period, so instead of paying for 20% of a month, you'll be paying for 20 work days, 60% of a month. On AWS, that would run you $546/month, 4x as much as you'd pay MacStadium for the entire month. AWS's price is only comparable to MacStadium if you need five 24-hour periods per month (or less). And, sure, AWS's prices will decline at some point, but I'm not expecting an 80% price drop this year.
- LeifCarrotson 6y agoI have an app I need to compile on a Mac that I only make changes to maybe once a quarter, or four days a year. That's an ideal use case for on-demand AWS Macs, and I'll probably transition to that if the Mac Mini in the corner ever decides not to boot or not to accept a mandatory OS update when I have to use it someday. Also, I'm more likely to transition to this because I'm familiar with AWS, I didn't know MacStadium existed before this thread. If that's their target market (and not someone who wants a scalable Mac build farm available 24/7 and doesn't care about costs), then it makes sense - I pay a lot less than the price of a Mini to rent it 4 days a year, if Amazon can find 90 other people who want to do the same, all of us are better off.
- aj_search 6y agoIf you haven't you may want to consider https://www.macincloud.com/ https://www.macincloud.com/ where you can rent it for $1 per hour when you need. Your use case seems very suitable for that. It is roughly same price point as AWS but can stretch your dollars longer vs AWS 24 hour upfront.
- greenkey 6y agoIf you’re not testing/using it the rest of the time, doesn’t that affect the quality? Dog-fooding is usually a better idea, right?
- the1truestripes 6y agoOk, I understand how just looking at the cost of a box of Mac mini in the Apple store doesn't represent the TCO... ...however is the AWS price including a lot of value the Mac mini colo price doesn't? I believe the AWS price is dramatically higher unless you can batch the 20% duty cycle into full days (AWS is following Apple's EULA and only billing in 24 consecutive hour chunks). I'm not a "I can build in the garage cheaper", I'm a "we use to build servers that way, run them ourselves (and steal meeting rooms form ourselves and put extra cooling in), and then I went off to do other things for 20 years and now I work at a huge company where we build our own cloud stuff...but if I were at a less huge company how would this stuff actually work out?" kind of person (i.e. I know the _theory_ of renting other people's servers, but the finer points of actually evaluating it are not currently in my grasp).
- npsimons 6y ago> but if everyone can get their heads out of the hobbyist-tinkerer mindset for a moment and consider that lifetime TCO is a real and meaningful consideration for businesses This is the hard thing for me. I just like having so much control of having hardware at home, and I've got static IPs. But it costs to power and cool them, and they aren't elastic like cloud/IaaS. Having started the move to VPSs and finding them very good for the price, I'm now trying to wrap my head around "cattle, not pets", but still with a micropreneur mindset. I think it's still worth it, and my home office is getting quieter with every server I relocate to somebody else's hardware.
- freedomben 6y agoI'm the same way as you. I love my hardware. But the real place cloud/IaaS shines for me is when you aggressively scale, both up and down. If you're used to pets and physical machines then you probably over provision a lot. With the cloud you can ride the CPU/memory line a lot closer and scale quickly when needed.
- pishpash 6y agoThe thing with scaledowns is that scaledowns usually never happens. It also costs money to build scaledown logic and build around elastic resources.