5 ms·

Yeah, AWS isn't for a smaller company. When you have a real finance department that vets each third party or have some governmental requirement to get three qu

Yeah, AWS isn't for a smaller company. When you have a real finance department that vets each third party or have some governmental requirement to get three quotes for each new service (part of requirements set out to minimize grift in sourcing), having a single bill that can be expanded to include new projects and services makes it a little simple. This causes a problem during cost cutting because unless it's a priority your bill will spiral out of control.

candiodari 6y ago
And yet, AWS isn't for a really larger company either. At some point the bills become so huge that running your own IT and datacenters is cheaper. Usually a lot. Even when it means building some AWS services yourself. https://www.bmc.com/blogs/dropbox-aws/ https://www.bmc.com/blogs/dropbox-aws/
- oblio 6y ago
  > These large companies rely on these established solutions, paying much bigger bills than Dropbox – surely, there must be a good reason for it. Maybe the answer is this: the cloud isn’t the answer for everyone, but it probably is for most companies.
- ldng 6y ago
  Yes, it really is a curve bell but I get deride every time I say it ... the power of marketing.
  - apple4ever 6y ago
    A bell curve is a great way to describe it.
- taylodl 6y ago
  Worker at Fortune 200 company here having multiple datacenters and the operations staff to go with that. So far, every single application we've ported over to AWS has resulted in reduced costs. I'm not even talking about total costs, i.e. datacenter power costs, real estate taxes, staffing costs - I'm only talking about server costs, networking costs, storage costs and software licensing costs. So far AWS has beat on-premise every single time. Is it cheap? Compared to running on-premise Hell Yeah! Our average savings has been 60% (and like I said we're not even looking at total cost, so the actual average savings is even higher). It's ridiculous.

candiodari 6y ago

And yet, AWS isn't for a really larger company either. At some point the bills become so huge that running your own IT and datacenters is cheaper. Usually a lot. Even when it means building some AWS services yourself. https://www.bmc.com/blogs/dropbox-aws/ https://www.bmc.com/blogs/dropbox-aws/

oblio 6y ago
> These large companies rely on these established solutions, paying much bigger bills than Dropbox – surely, there must be a good reason for it. Maybe the answer is this: the cloud isn’t the answer for everyone, but it probably is for most companies.
ldng 6y ago
Yes, it really is a curve bell but I get deride every time I say it ... the power of marketing.
- apple4ever 6y ago
  A bell curve is a great way to describe it.
taylodl 6y ago
Worker at Fortune 200 company here having multiple datacenters and the operations staff to go with that. So far, every single application we've ported over to AWS has resulted in reduced costs. I'm not even talking about total costs, i.e. datacenter power costs, real estate taxes, staffing costs - I'm only talking about server costs, networking costs, storage costs and software licensing costs. So far AWS has beat on-premise every single time. Is it cheap? Compared to running on-premise Hell Yeah! Our average savings has been 60% (and like I said we're not even looking at total cost, so the actual average savings is even higher). It's ridiculous.