5 ms·
Kinda funny they decided paying a ton of money to aws was ok but paying for nginx plus was not
by dilyevsky 5y ago
Kinda funny they decided paying a ton of money to aws was ok but paying for nginx plus was not
- Spivak 5y agoI kinda get that honestly. It’s why I’ll spend $20 without even thinking for take out but not spend $2 for an app. It’s because the cost off the software is way way more than the money. It’s a commitment to actually use it and integrate it, deal with their sales team, talk to purchasing, handle licensing, and introducing friction to replacing it or using tools that don’t integrate well because “well we already pay for it.” Licensing also complicates deployments substantially when you’re doing lots of autoscaling. And on top of that Nginx Plus is also expensive as hell.
- dilyevsky 5y agoDon’t you have to integrate cloud? This whole post is about having to put a bunch of workaround bc the cloud can’t scale apparently
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"It’s why I’ll spend $20 without even thinking for take out but not spend $2 for an app." I pay for apps, its not a healthy attotude
- rowanG077 5y agoThe buy in into AWS is much, much larger then using a piece of software though.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- spullara 5y agoThe difference people see, as far as I can tell, is that AWS is charging you cost+ and pure software companies need to charge for value or die.
- dilyevsky 5y agoMaybe for barebones compute they’re cost+ but I don’t think that’s really true for other services. For example traffic should cost effectively zero to them but they charge a huge premium. Some other managed services also appear to use value based pricing
- andrenotgiant 5y agoClubHouse runs on AWS?
- dilyevsky 5y agoHm actually might be google based on what their traffic is going to (i only looked just now). Ok now it makes more sense why support wasn’t able to figure this out =)