6 ms·
As another comment mentioned, this is through 2029 and Pinterest believes they are on track to spend that much. Another useful comment from the thread: > Make
by abc11283 5y ago
As another comment mentioned, this is through 2029 and Pinterest believes they are on track to spend that much.
Another useful comment from the thread:
> Makes sense for both parties.
> For AWS, it allows them to make hardware investments early on
> For Pinterest - it allows them to keep costs manageable and get a significant discount on MSRP
- komaromy 5y ago> For AWS, it allows them to make hardware investments early on I can't imagine this deal (signed in April 2021) has that much impact on either AWS's hardware budget or their usage projections.
- pm90 5y agoBelieve it or not cloud providers don’t have unlimited compute elasticity. That’s a fundamental deceit of cloud computing. While Pinterest by itself may not make a difference, the accumulated guaranteed compute requirements across all such deals give AWS a pretty solid resource provisioning baseline to target.
- QuinnyPig 5y agoSorta; it depends upon whether the deal is scoped to specific AZs or not. At this scale the contracts are effectively bespoke.
- rasz 5y ago>allows them to keep costs manageable ~$400M/year, for a company with negative income so far
- abc11283 5y agoI wasn’t gonna say it!
- vasilipupkin 5y agoThey could try doing it themselves but it’s a big risk and far from guaranteed to be cheaper.
- otabdeveloper4 5y agoIt's absolutely guaranteed to be cheaper. (Provided you know what you're doing.) Probaly a case of vendor lock-in.
- agentofoblivion 5y agoThe hubris of HN posters has no bounds. I’m sure that tweet gave you all you need to know to contradict the insiders responsible for making multi-billion dollar decisions… It’s probably the case that they’re all dumb, and the Internet rando has the absolutely guaranteed answer.
- Nextgrid 5y agoWeWork is proof that people making multi-billion dollar decisions aren’t always smart, and that’s even in a somewhat less volatile sector. When it comes to tech and the cloud hype I bet it’s even worse.
- otabdeveloper4 5y agoMore middle men means more expensive. Regardless of what you think, you can't cheat the laws of conservation, they're built into the physical structure of our universe. AWS is a middle man in the hosting business. Sometimes it's okay, but you can't cheat the fact that Amazon has to take their cut. (This might change in the future when FAANG privatizes the global Internet for their own use, but we're not there yet today.)
- agentofoblivion 5y agoAnd Toyota is a middleman between you and the raw materials to build a car. I guess it’s obvious that you can build a car cheaper than Toyota? How do the economies of scale fit into this false equivalency of a physics analogy?
- jgalt212 5y ago454 million MAU, so about $0.88 per year per user. Not a terrible deal by any stretch.
- detaro 5y agoWhat counts as a "user" in this case?
- nacs 5y agoAnyone who has put a fake email into their forced-registration popup to be able to view any of their content I'd imagine.
- Schiendelman 5y agoCompanies don’t usually publish their definitions, but they also have to make an effort to exclude fake users or risk being held accountable by their investors.
- detaro 5y agoSure, but if I accidentally click on one of their links in google image search I'm "using" the website and not "fake", but $0.80 would be quite a bad deal ;) Whereas its registered users actively doing something on the site, not as terrible.
- Schiendelman 5y agoAh, I see what you mean. I've never seen a major company claim top of funnel were "users". You'd have to have an account.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- snarf21 5y agoDo people still use Pinterest? I used to hear/see females in my family talking about it but not anymore. It seems like all Pinterest does today is destroy google image search.