3 ms·

I don't see how this is anti-competitive. It's a crappy business practice designed to promote lock-in, but Google Compute and Azure both exist and are run by la

by sidlls 4y ago

I don't see how this is anti-competitive. It's a crappy business practice designed to promote lock-in, but Google Compute and Azure both exist and are run by large, well-known companies that have the marketing and technical prowess to compete with AWS (and they do, even if not as effectively as they--or the consumer--would like).

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
>It's a crappy business practice designed to promote lock-in Making it harder to switch is by definition anti-competitive The whole point is that companies should not be trying to trick or stifle customers in any way from making a rational decision that is in their own best interest, including leaving their service. The whole game here is "what can we get away with" and playing that game to start with is unethical.
- sidlls 4y ago
  "Making it harder to switch is by definition anti-competitive" It isn't. Anti-competitive would be using one's market power to drive out competition or keep competition from arising. There is no reasonable definition of "anti-competitive" for Amazon in this case, since Google and Microsoft are (arguably) even better positioned to compete (since they are tech companies, where Amazon is not). To avoid the lock-in, simply choose a different provider, or self-host. There is literally tons of competition in AWS' market.
- rushb 4y ago
  > Making it harder to switch is by definition anti-competitive Every provider out there optimizes the integration between its own services and makes sure the products in its ecosystem work nicely together. Meanwhile they cannot account for all other usages outside their systems. That's far from "making it harder to switch".
akira2501 4y ago
A market dominated by three large players is not particularly competitive, especially since all their offerings are mostly the same, cost mostly the same, and there's very little to differentiate between any of their services.
- gnur 4y ago
  If only that was true, the only way to remain cloud agnostic seems to be to use Kubernetes and some kind of managed sql database. Once you factor in some things like pubsub, SNS, dynamodb or firebase you quickly lock yourself in. Running the same server less application across clouds gets even more complicated
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Anyone who thinks that using K8s and running everything on your own makes “cloud agnosticism” realistic has never dealt with large scale migrations and the institutional complexity behind it. (Yes I’m agreeing with you) Yes I work for AWS Professional Services now. But I’ve seen the same with Azure and on prem in previous jobs. It hardly ever makes business sense not to go all in on whatever your infrastructure decisions are.

by sidlls 4y ago

AndrewKemendo 4y ago

>It's a crappy business practice designed to promote lock-in Making it harder to switch is by definition anti-competitive The whole point is that companies should not be trying to trick or stifle customers in any way from making a rational decision that is in their own best interest, including leaving their service. The whole game here is "what can we get away with" and playing that game to start with is unethical.

sidlls 4y ago
"Making it harder to switch is by definition anti-competitive" It isn't. Anti-competitive would be using one's market power to drive out competition or keep competition from arising. There is no reasonable definition of "anti-competitive" for Amazon in this case, since Google and Microsoft are (arguably) even better positioned to compete (since they are tech companies, where Amazon is not). To avoid the lock-in, simply choose a different provider, or self-host. There is literally tons of competition in AWS' market.
rushb 4y ago
> Making it harder to switch is by definition anti-competitive Every provider out there optimizes the integration between its own services and makes sure the products in its ecosystem work nicely together. Meanwhile they cannot account for all other usages outside their systems. That's far from "making it harder to switch".

akira2501 4y ago

A market dominated by three large players is not particularly competitive, especially since all their offerings are mostly the same, cost mostly the same, and there's very little to differentiate between any of their services.

gnur 4y ago
If only that was true, the only way to remain cloud agnostic seems to be to use Kubernetes and some kind of managed sql database. Once you factor in some things like pubsub, SNS, dynamodb or firebase you quickly lock yourself in. Running the same server less application across clouds gets even more complicated
- scarface74 4y ago
  Anyone who thinks that using K8s and running everything on your own makes “cloud agnosticism” realistic has never dealt with large scale migrations and the institutional complexity behind it. (Yes I’m agreeing with you) Yes I work for AWS Professional Services now. But I’ve seen the same with Azure and on prem in previous jobs. It hardly ever makes business sense not to go all in on whatever your infrastructure decisions are.