> "You" probably don't need AWS Who are "you" ? That answer is crucial. "You probably don't need to pay your power company" could be a similar headline. It's

> "You" probably don't need AWS Who are "you" ? That answer is crucial. "You probably don't need to pay your power company" could be a similar headline. It's true, we could all deploy generators to power our homes(and handle fuel logistics etc), or go fully offgrid with solar panels and batteries. Why don't we do that? Let's see - there's the equipment cost, then there's the 'installation' and 'maintenance' costs, often performed by contractors. This often makes the return on investment not worth it. It would make even less sense if we had to constantly tinker with the power solution (or keep someone on call to do that, on our own payroll). Let's say we have an aluminum plant in the middle of a desert somewhere. It might make sense to operate a power plant tailored to our own requirements. Or pay a company to build and operate one, as it's their expertise. Somehow, these calculations look different whenever executives try to pitch their "on-prem" or "colo" solutions. I've yet to see a spreadsheet where their own staff costs are called out. Or the potential costs because someone has to rack and stack new capacity, rather than that being automatically handled. AWS is the 'power company'. They take care of stuff so I don't have to. If I'm pulling too much power, that's on me. Linode would be a company specialized in generator rentals. Some logistics taken care of, I still have to worry about a bunch of stuff. It might be what my shed in Alaska needs. Now, a discussion can be had on AWS pricing structure (cough network egress cough). I would expect to pay a premium. Sometimes they are reasonable, sometimes they aren't (Hi, NAT GW).