4 ms·

That has nothing to do with lock-in, you can still do your business elsewhere and have egress. It is more like the position of power AWS has; you can go elsewh

That has nothing to do with lock-in, you can still do your business elsewhere and have egress. It is more like the position of power AWS has; you can go elsewhere, but you'd have to choose not to make use of the facilities AWS provides. So you either pay for egress at AWS, or pay for reinventing the wheel elsewhere so you won't have to pay the same egress rates.

stavros 5y ago
How does it not have anything to do with lock-in? They literally make it expensive to use someone else's services, outside of the AWS data center.
- oneplane 5y ago
  Lock-in means "making it hard to move your business data and processes to a different offering", not "network costs money".
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    > "making it hard to move your business data and processes to a different offering", not "network costs money" Correction: "Network costs obscene amounts of money" ~= "making it hard to move your business data and processes to a different offering"
    - oneplane 5y ago
      That's not hard, just costly. Hard would be "here is your data in an obscure binary format and we are not going to tell you how to decode it". If you want to make a point of it being expensive, just say that it is expensive. Expensive isn't hard, it's just a calculation.
      - pritambaral 5y ago
        > That's not hard, just costly. "High cost" doesn't mean "not hard". "Hard" isn't exclusively owned by engineers; business decisions can also be hard. > Hard would be ... Stop right there. You're awfully close to gatekeeping what "hard" means, but you have artificially limited your vision to "hard engineering problems". > Expensive isn't hard, it's just a calculation. Everything is a calculation. The cost of reverse engineering (or using an RE'd method) is a calculation. The cost of switching is a calculation. Deciding where to stop when making a pithy comment on a forum is a calculation. Here's a simple method to determine (in the context of lock-in) what's "hard": is it significantly preventing you from doing what you want? Maybe you have a lot of money to burn in getting your own data out from a predatory silo, so it's not "hard" for you, but consider that not everyone might be in the same boat as you.
        oneplane 5y ago
        Nobody is 'gatekeeping' anything. Words have meanings, and have existed for a long time. Their meaning is well understood at exec, management and engineering levels and don't need to be redefined. You seem to assume that I'm writing about technology lock-in, which I am not. I am writing about the ability to use a different vendor. Not about runtime cost or integration. Known runtime cost is part of normal OPEX. Having to reverse engineer something because your MRI vendor won't give you the specs to write drivers for the 64-bit PCI-X acquisition card is vendor lock-in. If you need more examples, just ask around in any organisation of reasonable size. And no, we are not talking about individual people here (just in case you were making that assumption - it's hard for me to detect that in your writings). If you want to change the meaning of what vendor lock-in means (it already has a definition, which I have written down a few times for your ease of not having to look it up yourself), good luck trying that out in your own context. Just for the sake of completeness, here is a random paper that explains it in extra detail: https://personal.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/paths.html https://personal.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/paths.html you could have found that relatively easily, even Wikipedia refers to it making it highly discoverable. If you don't like papers that are published by the author, feel free to request a copy at the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. If an explanation, reference or paper isn't good enough for you, why bother posting at all? Perhaps the simplest distinction might be: you keep talking about OPEX while vendor lock-in is vendor-controlled CAPEX to 'get out'.
kortilla 5y ago
I think you had difficulty understanding my point. People were effectively locked in until cloudflare and others had enough comparable offerings that Amazon had to actually compete. A massive drop in prices like that means people were locked in and the switching cost in the market just dropped. So Amazon had to adjust to keep the customers.

stavros 5y ago

How does it not have anything to do with lock-in? They literally make it expensive to use someone else's services, outside of the AWS data center.

oneplane 5y ago
Lock-in means "making it hard to move your business data and processes to a different offering", not "network costs money".
- pritambaral 5y ago
  > "making it hard to move your business data and processes to a different offering", not "network costs money" Correction: "Network costs obscene amounts of money" ~= "making it hard to move your business data and processes to a different offering"
  - oneplane 5y ago
    That's not hard, just costly. Hard would be "here is your data in an obscure binary format and we are not going to tell you how to decode it". If you want to make a point of it being expensive, just say that it is expensive. Expensive isn't hard, it's just a calculation.
    - pritambaral 5y ago
      > That's not hard, just costly. "High cost" doesn't mean "not hard". "Hard" isn't exclusively owned by engineers; business decisions can also be hard. > Hard would be ... Stop right there. You're awfully close to gatekeeping what "hard" means, but you have artificially limited your vision to "hard engineering problems". > Expensive isn't hard, it's just a calculation. Everything is a calculation. The cost of reverse engineering (or using an RE'd method) is a calculation. The cost of switching is a calculation. Deciding where to stop when making a pithy comment on a forum is a calculation. Here's a simple method to determine (in the context of lock-in) what's "hard": is it significantly preventing you from doing what you want? Maybe you have a lot of money to burn in getting your own data out from a predatory silo, so it's not "hard" for you, but consider that not everyone might be in the same boat as you.
      - oneplane 5y ago
        Nobody is 'gatekeeping' anything. Words have meanings, and have existed for a long time. Their meaning is well understood at exec, management and engineering levels and don't need to be redefined. You seem to assume that I'm writing about technology lock-in, which I am not. I am writing about the ability to use a different vendor. Not about runtime cost or integration. Known runtime cost is part of normal OPEX. Having to reverse engineer something because your MRI vendor won't give you the specs to write drivers for the 64-bit PCI-X acquisition card is vendor lock-in. If you need more examples, just ask around in any organisation of reasonable size. And no, we are not talking about individual people here (just in case you were making that assumption - it's hard for me to detect that in your writings). If you want to change the meaning of what vendor lock-in means (it already has a definition, which I have written down a few times for your ease of not having to look it up yourself), good luck trying that out in your own context. Just for the sake of completeness, here is a random paper that explains it in extra detail: https://personal.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/paths.html https://personal.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/paths.html you could have found that relatively easily, even Wikipedia refers to it making it highly discoverable. If you don't like papers that are published by the author, feel free to request a copy at the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. If an explanation, reference or paper isn't good enough for you, why bother posting at all? Perhaps the simplest distinction might be: you keep talking about OPEX while vendor lock-in is vendor-controlled CAPEX to 'get out'.

kortilla 5y ago

I think you had difficulty understanding my point. People were effectively locked in until cloudflare and others had enough comparable offerings that Amazon had to actually compete. A massive drop in prices like that means people were locked in and the switching cost in the market just dropped. So Amazon had to adjust to keep the customers.