4 ms·

Working at AWS must be fun You basically reinvent all the stuff - from databases to all avaliable tooling normal companies dont do that, so there' an opportun

Working at AWS must be fun You basically reinvent all the stuff - from databases to all avaliable tooling normal companies dont do that, so there' an opportunity to get deep into some specific branch of applied informatics.

k__ 6y ago
I think, the difference is that AWS already has a bunch of core services that scale and uses them as a base for new services. (MongoDB->DocumentDB) Also, they hear about the problems some customers have with an existing product and try to (re)invent a better solution. (MySQL->Aurora)
jrnkntl 6y ago
They even name their annual event this way[1] [1] https://reinvent.awsevents.com https://reinvent.awsevents.com
LukeEF 6y ago
But why do they do it so badly? Seems like they have the engineering muscle to put out a great reinvention of a document db, a time series db, a graph db... but each is relatively poor to the other services on AWS. Is it the combination of MVP-culture and lock-in?
- nkozyra 6y ago
  Breadth versus depth seems to be the play outside of their absolute core offerings. It allows people to dip their toes into something with minimal commitment and by the time they realize the shortcomings they might conclude that migrating for those features just isn't worth it. So this give them a bit of lock-in. Come for the EC2, stay for the minimally viable queues, machine learning, containers, etc.
  - nautilus12 6y ago
    This exactly, they are just trying to get their foot in the door in literally any idea someone else is already pursuing so that if it starts to make money they can start to put the juice on the engineering for that and take their market share. The business model is solely focused on competing with and taking out other businesses, not actually providing any value. AWS is like a pack of sharks.
- dash2 6y ago
  The article suggests an answer: "The viability of our company, Timescale, is 100% dependent on the quality of TimescaleDB. If we build a sub-par product, we cease to exist. Amazon Timestream is just another of the 200+ services that Amazon is developing. Regardless of the quality of Amazon Timestream, that team will still be supported by the rest of Amazon’s business – and if the product gets shut down, that team will find homes elsewhere within the larger company."
- mavelikara 6y ago
  The value they sell is really operational convenience. Over time they have figured out how to run large services at scale, and monetize that. The features of those services are often weaker than competition, as noted in this thread.
- hnmullany 6y ago
  There are only so many "A" teams in a big company.
dhagz 6y ago
Sometimes I'm not even sure they're re-inventing, just adding a vender-lock-in layer on top of the service and making it run on Lambda so they can advertise it as "web-scale".
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Yeah, although not on the AGPL licensed services.
Sevii 6y ago
It’s fun if you’re the guy building the stuff. Not if you’re the guy using all reinvented tooling.
cpufry 6y ago
it would be more fun without the annual reinvent death march

k__ 6y ago

I think, the difference is that AWS already has a bunch of core services that scale and uses them as a base for new services. (MongoDB->DocumentDB) Also, they hear about the problems some customers have with an existing product and try to (re)invent a better solution. (MySQL->Aurora)

jrnkntl 6y ago

They even name their annual event this way[1] [1] https://reinvent.awsevents.com https://reinvent.awsevents.com

LukeEF 6y ago

But why do they do it so badly? Seems like they have the engineering muscle to put out a great reinvention of a document db, a time series db, a graph db... but each is relatively poor to the other services on AWS. Is it the combination of MVP-culture and lock-in?

nkozyra 6y ago
Breadth versus depth seems to be the play outside of their absolute core offerings. It allows people to dip their toes into something with minimal commitment and by the time they realize the shortcomings they might conclude that migrating for those features just isn't worth it. So this give them a bit of lock-in. Come for the EC2, stay for the minimally viable queues, machine learning, containers, etc.
- nautilus12 6y ago
  This exactly, they are just trying to get their foot in the door in literally any idea someone else is already pursuing so that if it starts to make money they can start to put the juice on the engineering for that and take their market share. The business model is solely focused on competing with and taking out other businesses, not actually providing any value. AWS is like a pack of sharks.
dash2 6y ago
The article suggests an answer: "The viability of our company, Timescale, is 100% dependent on the quality of TimescaleDB. If we build a sub-par product, we cease to exist. Amazon Timestream is just another of the 200+ services that Amazon is developing. Regardless of the quality of Amazon Timestream, that team will still be supported by the rest of Amazon’s business – and if the product gets shut down, that team will find homes elsewhere within the larger company."
mavelikara 6y ago
The value they sell is really operational convenience. Over time they have figured out how to run large services at scale, and monetize that. The features of those services are often weaker than competition, as noted in this thread.
hnmullany 6y ago
There are only so many "A" teams in a big company.

dhagz 6y ago

Sometimes I'm not even sure they're re-inventing, just adding a vender-lock-in layer on top of the service and making it run on Lambda so they can advertise it as "web-scale".

whimsicalism 6y ago
Yeah, although not on the AGPL licensed services.

Sevii 6y ago

It’s fun if you’re the guy building the stuff. Not if you’re the guy using all reinvented tooling.

cpufry 6y ago

it would be more fun without the annual reinvent death march