5 ms·
That doesn’t really change anything. The opportunity cost would be the same, which is what matters for companies. Those resources could be sold for market value
by stu2b50 4y ago
That doesn’t really change anything. The opportunity cost would be the same, which is what matters for companies. Those resources could be sold for market value rates to a customer if they weren’t being allocated to DPReview.
- manmal 4y agoOpportunity cost implies that there is an alternative that AWS forgoes if they allocate resources to DPReview. Can’t they just provision more hardware?
- stu2b50 4y agoHardware cost money? The rate at which AWS buys more hardware is consistent with their income from their cloud rental business. If they're not going to buy the hardware otherwise, then evidently at cloud market rates the marginal income isn't worth it. Hardware, rackspace are all resources. If something is using up hardware and rackspace, there is opportunity cost.
- orangesite 4y agoThe richer we are the less we can afford.
- citrin_ru 4y agoIf they cared about saving money they would try to sell it. Something which doesn't bring many millions is to small for Amazon to care even if it cost rounding error on a balance sheet to run it.
- ghaff 4y agoThe problem is that at a big/huge company, every little project imposes some share of costs and distraction all the way up the line and on supporting groups. And, yes, that means something could be reasonable as at least lifestyle business for someone. But unless it more than incidentally supports more central parts of Amazon's business, a million dollar side business isn't really very interesting to a company like Amazon. And have more than a few of those and people start to reasonably ask what Amazon is actually focused on.
- ricardobeat 4y agoThat doesn’t stop them from selling it.
- manmal 4y agoI think you are describing cost in the traditional sense, and not opportunity cost.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoWhy is it an either/or? Is Amazon bandwidth-constrained?