3 ms·

> Technical restrictions on interoperability. These are imposed by the leading firms that prevent some of their services working effectively with services from

> Technical restrictions on interoperability. These are imposed by the leading firms that prevent some of their services working effectively with services from other providers. This means customers need to put additional effort into reconfiguring their data and applications to work across different clouds. I'm not sure what they mean by this, anyone care to speculate?

reset-password 4y ago
Sounds like a fancy way of saying vendor lock-in
- miohtama 4y ago
  Microsoft would never do vendor lock-in (:
hkt 4y ago
I'd guess that migrating from any of the local cloud DB variations (Aurora say) is unduly hard once you've migrated to it. But that's just a guess. It is certainly a PITA to migrate, I know that for sure.
- YawningAngel 4y ago
  I agree with that, but given that a lot of the DBs on AWS and Azure are proprietary software (eg Cosmos and DDB) I'm not sure what ofcom proposes doing about that.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    They don’t propose to do anything. They don’t even say that this feature in particular is illegal. They merely say that after doing a market study, they noticed that: egress fees are significant, technical barriers to interoperability are in place and the discount structure based on committed spending is suspicious. From their point of view, that warrants an actual full investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.
- cntainer 4y ago
  Cloud providers will always make their in-house offerings more attractive and easier to use compared to other (open standards) solutions. That's how you get locked in.
- happymellon 4y ago
  Considering that Aurora has either a Postgres or MySqL interfaces, you could just dump them using the standard tools. That's probably not a great example of vendor lock-in.
  - eropple 4y ago
    This is true, but when you own a platform, you don't have to have nonstandard interfaces in order to lock a user in. For example, they whack your self-hosted or other-vendor-in-AWS options with cross-AZ bandwidth charges that they exempt you from when using RDS.

reset-password 4y ago

Sounds like a fancy way of saying vendor lock-in

miohtama 4y ago
Microsoft would never do vendor lock-in (:

hkt 4y ago

I'd guess that migrating from any of the local cloud DB variations (Aurora say) is unduly hard once you've migrated to it. But that's just a guess. It is certainly a PITA to migrate, I know that for sure.

YawningAngel 4y ago
I agree with that, but given that a lot of the DBs on AWS and Azure are proprietary software (eg Cosmos and DDB) I'm not sure what ofcom proposes doing about that.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  They don’t propose to do anything. They don’t even say that this feature in particular is illegal. They merely say that after doing a market study, they noticed that: egress fees are significant, technical barriers to interoperability are in place and the discount structure based on committed spending is suspicious. From their point of view, that warrants an actual full investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.
cntainer 4y ago
Cloud providers will always make their in-house offerings more attractive and easier to use compared to other (open standards) solutions. That's how you get locked in.
happymellon 4y ago
Considering that Aurora has either a Postgres or MySqL interfaces, you could just dump them using the standard tools. That's probably not a great example of vendor lock-in.
- eropple 4y ago
  This is true, but when you own a platform, you don't have to have nonstandard interfaces in order to lock a user in. For example, they whack your self-hosted or other-vendor-in-AWS options with cross-AZ bandwidth charges that they exempt you from when using RDS.