7 ms·

That's one reason. Some others: 1 - Free credits 2 - No one ever got fired for buying IBM 3 - AWS is sold to CTO/CIOs. AWS is a massive marketing and sales s

by latch 5y ago

That's one reason. Some others: 1 - Free credits 2 - No one ever got fired for buying IBM 3 - AWS is sold to CTO/CIOs. AWS is a massive marketing and sales success 4 - An entire job type has sprung up around cloud-complexity. These people have a vested interest is staying on cloud. 5 - Growing number of people think the choice is exclusively between cloud or colo. 6 - Entire generations brought up on cloud: a lot of people don't realize just how expensive cloud is.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
All excellent points.
vmception 5y ago
> 6 - Entire generations brought up on cloud: a lot of people don't realize just how expensive cloud is. Ah, so true. Heroku was my "solution" for so long, when its really so expensive on its own. All the pricing models are so messed up. I have some Digital Ocean nodes at either $5 or $20/mo, I need to shut those down. Deploying stuff that can communicate to other stuff is so easy right now and so cheap ... somewhere. Vercel to the rescue, for now.
judge2020 5y ago
Obviously 5 is really only a problem when you get into enterprises that have enough servers and monthly spend to where it would make more sense to invest in the overhead that is having your own servers.
philliphaydon 5y ago
> 6 - Entire generations brought up on cloud: a lot of people don't realize just how expensive cloud is. The same people who know it’s expensive seem to not know how cheap it is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- capableweb 5y ago
  If we're talking low amount of traffic, then maybe cloud is cheaper than dedicated. But for anything medium to high amount of traffic, cloud will always end up more expensive, or you have some unique use case where cloud is actually cheaper than dedicated over time?
  - zoover2020 5y ago
    A lot of hobby and or small websites and business could benefit from a pay-per-ms model like AWS Lambda. It's literally pennies in some cases, vs. renting a server that sits idle 99% of the time.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      What "hobby and or small websites and business" deal with medium to high amount of traffic? Those seems to strictly fall into the "low amount of traffic" bucket. Besides, you could either rent a $5/month VPS that you know will always be $5/month, or you can use AWS Lambda and never know what your bill is gonna be at the end. Your new blogpost hit frontpage of HN? Good news, your bill is now $40 for this month. Most (85% maybe) of my clients I work with want consistent costs over cheaper costs.
    - speedgoose 5y ago
      A can rent a few €/month VM that is idling all the time but who cares, or struggle developing with AWS Lambda and risk paying orders of magnitude more.
  - philliphaydon 5y ago
    If we are only considering traffic then sure AWS can be expensive. Costs me $730 for 17TB of data at the moment. But looking at where money is being saved. 6 ec2 instances previously was $648.24/m, now its $6.82/m after moving to Step Functions / Lambda's, and it just works better as there's no fighting for resources anymore. You know whats expensive in AWS. S3 Storage. Got some odd ~500TB stored in there. But at 6k/m I can't imagine trying to keep that in dedicated hardware. Atleast in S3 I feel it's safe.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mschuster91 5y ago
> 3 - AWS is sold to CTO/CIOs. AWS is a massive marketing and sales success Not always. People on the ground push for cloud stuff because it makes their lives easier and they are used to it from their side projects (where they, more likely than not, used the generous free credits). It's just like back in ye olde days when all you needed to do to get a copy of Photoshop was the official installer and a keygen... Adobe didn't invest much in marketing and didn't do much against piracy until the end of CS6/the rise of CC, simply to become the universal industry standard.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by latch 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago

All excellent points.

vmception 5y ago

> 6 - Entire generations brought up on cloud: a lot of people don't realize just how expensive cloud is. Ah, so true. Heroku was my "solution" for so long, when its really so expensive on its own. All the pricing models are so messed up. I have some Digital Ocean nodes at either $5 or $20/mo, I need to shut those down. Deploying stuff that can communicate to other stuff is so easy right now and so cheap ... somewhere. Vercel to the rescue, for now.

judge2020 5y ago

Obviously 5 is really only a problem when you get into enterprises that have enough servers and monthly spend to where it would make more sense to invest in the overhead that is having your own servers.

philliphaydon 5y ago

> 6 - Entire generations brought up on cloud: a lot of people don't realize just how expensive cloud is. The same people who know it’s expensive seem to not know how cheap it is.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
capableweb 5y ago
If we're talking low amount of traffic, then maybe cloud is cheaper than dedicated. But for anything medium to high amount of traffic, cloud will always end up more expensive, or you have some unique use case where cloud is actually cheaper than dedicated over time?
- zoover2020 5y ago
  A lot of hobby and or small websites and business could benefit from a pay-per-ms model like AWS Lambda. It's literally pennies in some cases, vs. renting a server that sits idle 99% of the time.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    What "hobby and or small websites and business" deal with medium to high amount of traffic? Those seems to strictly fall into the "low amount of traffic" bucket. Besides, you could either rent a $5/month VPS that you know will always be $5/month, or you can use AWS Lambda and never know what your bill is gonna be at the end. Your new blogpost hit frontpage of HN? Good news, your bill is now $40 for this month. Most (85% maybe) of my clients I work with want consistent costs over cheaper costs.
  - speedgoose 5y ago
    A can rent a few €/month VM that is idling all the time but who cares, or struggle developing with AWS Lambda and risk paying orders of magnitude more.
- philliphaydon 5y ago
  If we are only considering traffic then sure AWS can be expensive. Costs me $730 for 17TB of data at the moment. But looking at where money is being saved. 6 ec2 instances previously was $648.24/m, now its $6.82/m after moving to Step Functions / Lambda's, and it just works better as there's no fighting for resources anymore. You know whats expensive in AWS. S3 Storage. Got some odd ~500TB stored in there. But at 6k/m I can't imagine trying to keep that in dedicated hardware. Atleast in S3 I feel it's safe.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mschuster91 5y ago

> 3 - AWS is sold to CTO/CIOs. AWS is a massive marketing and sales success Not always. People on the ground push for cloud stuff because it makes their lives easier and they are used to it from their side projects (where they, more likely than not, used the generous free credits). It's just like back in ye olde days when all you needed to do to get a copy of Photoshop was the official installer and a keygen... Adobe didn't invest much in marketing and didn't do much against piracy until the end of CS6/the rise of CC, simply to become the universal industry standard.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]