3 ms·
You speak like clouds never have downtime, or don't charge you for space and power. Look at the article - that one company would needed to have paid more than t
by fidgewidge 4y ago
You speak like clouds never have downtime, or don't charge you for space and power. Look at the article - that one company would needed to have paid more than their entire revenue to AWS for worse hardware. They'd have spent $400M in 3 years on the cloud! There are no "hidden costs" that can even begin to approach a fraction of that.
As for staff salaries, lol. It's not like AWS is self administering.
- oxfordmale 4y agoIn the cloud, costs are transparent, as you receive a single monthly bill. When you self-host, there are many hidden expenses you would need to track down (energy, admin, maintenance, etc.) The figures in the article are for illustration purposes only and should be taken with a large pinch of salt. The author doesn't detail what hardware they are running, what EC2 instances he has selected for comparison and how comparable the storage statistics are. I would also love to hear the Finance Department's version of his calculations. AWS is more expensive than self-hosting. However, it is not as skewed as the author claims. Otherwise, very few companies would be using the cloud.
- botsbreeder 4y agoCosts like energy, admin, maintenance were included. The figures for on premise are NOT illustrative but real figures. It is hard to believe how high cloud costs are.