3 ms·

Pricing makes sense if you consider how Amazon operates at this point. You put basically a MVP product out there with abnormal pricing. Your enterprise custome

Pricing makes sense if you consider how Amazon operates at this point. You put basically a MVP product out there with abnormal pricing. Your enterprise customers that are drowning in money can start using it and using that money you can grow your org by hiring more engineers. At this point you start working on adding new features and do cost optimization. Since your whole architecture was designed based on "we have to ship this ASAP", you deliver some real nice cost reduction easily. Then you reflect this to your customers and gain goodwill and good PR.

andrewstuart2 6y ago
And let's be honest. We all know a company or two that would throw _way_ more than 45k/year at a global metrics solution to handle that volume, and still wind up with a flaming scrap heap. And a promotion or two.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  uhh, the GP said $45k/month, so that's $540k/year. I've worked at some large companies, and none would accept that as a cost baseline for basic metrics. But if you said, "We'll cap it at $200k for 5,000 servers" then it gets more interesting. The exceptions are if they're in a NewRelic or Splunk-type $$$$ deal: 1) they might save money by migrating or 2) they might use the lower cost to re-negotiate their Cadillac deals. If you've used Cloudwatch at a medium or large-scale metrics and alerting, please post a comment how that worked out. I find their features/graphs too minimal, but I've never been forced to make it work as the sole metrics/monitoring/alerting tool. (New managers always parrot, "Let's just use Cloudwatch!" their first month on the job, but then reality sinks in and any existing monitoring solution is by far the least of their problems. My favorite question to ask is, "So how do we migrate these existing dashboards that everybody uses? Ever done that?" followed by icy silence.)
ec109685 6y ago
I don’t think any company is drowning in money. Everyone has a budget they are working against. At the end of the day, you can bite an engineer or pay aws more. It’s all a trade off.

andrewstuart2 6y ago

And let's be honest. We all know a company or two that would throw _way_ more than 45k/year at a global metrics solution to handle that volume, and still wind up with a flaming scrap heap. And a promotion or two.

redis_mlc 6y ago
uhh, the GP said $45k/month, so that's $540k/year. I've worked at some large companies, and none would accept that as a cost baseline for basic metrics. But if you said, "We'll cap it at $200k for 5,000 servers" then it gets more interesting. The exceptions are if they're in a NewRelic or Splunk-type $$$$ deal: 1) they might save money by migrating or 2) they might use the lower cost to re-negotiate their Cadillac deals. If you've used Cloudwatch at a medium or large-scale metrics and alerting, please post a comment how that worked out. I find their features/graphs too minimal, but I've never been forced to make it work as the sole metrics/monitoring/alerting tool. (New managers always parrot, "Let's just use Cloudwatch!" their first month on the job, but then reality sinks in and any existing monitoring solution is by far the least of their problems. My favorite question to ask is, "So how do we migrate these existing dashboards that everybody uses? Ever done that?" followed by icy silence.)

ec109685 6y ago

I don’t think any company is drowning in money. Everyone has a budget they are working against. At the end of the day, you can bite an engineer or pay aws more. It’s all a trade off.