4 ms·

> AWS feels like 700 two pizza teams Clearly. Things that seem super obvious and intuitive for an end customer require one to go through multiple hoops to get

> AWS feels like 700 two pizza teams Clearly. Things that seem super obvious and intuitive for an end customer require one to go through multiple hoops to get done. At this point even AWS seem to have give up trying to look at big picture and provide higher level end to end services. They are happy to roll out lower level primitives. I guess there’s a good amount of money to be made by building end to end solutions on top of AWS services.

oneplane 4y ago
tl;dr: AWS teams seem to mostly build technology and building blocks, Azure seems to mostly be a continuation of business products and Microsoft-to-Business contracts that happen to be tech-related. It is after all not a "Datacenter emulation as a service" like Microsoft Azure is. There are a handful of 'enduser' SaaS services from AWS, but most of it, as you describe, are primitives used to build other things. This is also where AWS originated from: just an internal system that was built to supply object storage and compute to internal teams. And when you start supplying commodity systems as a service it's just a matter of adopting and adding new services as they become more generic and more commodified. (RDS, container-based compute, FaaS, Load Balancing to name a few very common things that really are the same everywhere) A lot of people are used to specific services like GitHub where you pay for Git hosting, or Salesforce where you pay to get CRM, but those are not building blocks, just like Azure is mostly just "things that windows servers in datacenters used to do" in varying degrees of being managed. You can get a Windows VM and run a MSSQL instance on it, or you can get an MSSQL instance, or you can get a shared SQL partition, it's all the same service but with different contractual obligations, and that is exactly what Microsoft likes to do. That top-down difference is what feeds al the other differences between Azure and AWS (and GCP). This is not to say that they don't have Infrastructure building blocks, or that they don't have anything non-traditional, but it's mostly just pandering to the existing customer base on a business level, and not on a technical level. Same reason some people are stuck with MS Teams, not because it's good, but it was part of the MS contract that was essentially grandfathered in from legacy on-prem Office and Exchange to hosted versions to Microsoft 365. They mostly got people that way because of their failure on the intermediate step (Exchange Online from MS sucked), by simply hosting Sharepoint and Outlook for you, integrating everything else on top of that.
Aperocky 4y ago
> lower level primitives. This gives freedom. A lot of hand-holdy services and frameworks might save time for the first MVP product, it then invariably forces you to do insane opinionated dance to work with it any further.

oneplane 4y ago

tl;dr: AWS teams seem to mostly build technology and building blocks, Azure seems to mostly be a continuation of business products and Microsoft-to-Business contracts that happen to be tech-related. It is after all not a "Datacenter emulation as a service" like Microsoft Azure is. There are a handful of 'enduser' SaaS services from AWS, but most of it, as you describe, are primitives used to build other things. This is also where AWS originated from: just an internal system that was built to supply object storage and compute to internal teams. And when you start supplying commodity systems as a service it's just a matter of adopting and adding new services as they become more generic and more commodified. (RDS, container-based compute, FaaS, Load Balancing to name a few very common things that really are the same everywhere) A lot of people are used to specific services like GitHub where you pay for Git hosting, or Salesforce where you pay to get CRM, but those are not building blocks, just like Azure is mostly just "things that windows servers in datacenters used to do" in varying degrees of being managed. You can get a Windows VM and run a MSSQL instance on it, or you can get an MSSQL instance, or you can get a shared SQL partition, it's all the same service but with different contractual obligations, and that is exactly what Microsoft likes to do. That top-down difference is what feeds al the other differences between Azure and AWS (and GCP). This is not to say that they don't have Infrastructure building blocks, or that they don't have anything non-traditional, but it's mostly just pandering to the existing customer base on a business level, and not on a technical level. Same reason some people are stuck with MS Teams, not because it's good, but it was part of the MS contract that was essentially grandfathered in from legacy on-prem Office and Exchange to hosted versions to Microsoft 365. They mostly got people that way because of their failure on the intermediate step (Exchange Online from MS sucked), by simply hosting Sharepoint and Outlook for you, integrating everything else on top of that.

Aperocky 4y ago

> lower level primitives. This gives freedom. A lot of hand-holdy services and frameworks might save time for the first MVP product, it then invariably forces you to do insane opinionated dance to work with it any further.