7 ms·
Honest question, would anyone in their right mind choose Azure? Is it that folks are forced because the company's locked in or stuck on that platform?
by redwood 3y ago
Honest question, would anyone in their right mind choose Azure? Is it that folks are forced because the company's locked in or stuck on that platform?
- anyoneamous 3y ago> Is it that folks are forced because the company's locked in or stuck on that platform? Bingo.
- hn_version_0023 3y agoIME Microsoft offers so many free credits to businesses they wish to entice to their platform it becomes impossible to ignore. The CFO wants free shit. The CTO … also wants free shit. Every one else is left dealing with Azure.
- mongol 3y agoI can give you one reason: Amazon is also a competitor to many online retailers. Putting your business in the lap of a competitor is not something you do lightly.
- Horffupolde 3y agoCould encrypting at rest work?
- redwood 3y agoSo why not Google Cloud?
- StarlaAtNight 3y agothat's what Home Depot did, and they're a huge customer of GCP
- madboston 3y agoProbably because Google doesn't have a good reputation at keeping products alive for long time?
- theownan 3y ago[dead]
- latchkey 3y ago... said on the post where Microsoft is deprecating a product.
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y agoArguing that Google is better than Microsoft at managaging backwards compatibility and keeping things alive would be silly at best.
- x86_64Ubuntu 3y agoMS will delete your db and it's data, Google will delete Google Cloud in it's entirety.
- mongol 3y agoAsk them
- rany_ 3y agoI've found GCP to be extremely expensive bandwidth wise, however the network is also really good. So I suppose it's understandable that they'd charge a premium.
- c0pium 3y agoBecause they did an analysis of what was offered and what it cost and determined it was the best fit. Coupled with the fact that it’s run by the company with the best reputation in tech for backwards compatibility and you have a pretty compelling case. Also AAD.
- redwood 3y agoBackwards compatibility in connection with the headline above is interesting
- wongarsu 3y agoThey are giving two years notice. With a clear migration path with step-by-step instructions (linked in the article). And since MariaBD and MySQL are more-or-less drop-in replacements of each other it should also be a painless transition for most. That's not perfect, but much better than when last year GCP retired IoT Cloud Core with just one year notice, a much less public announcement (an email to affected customers and a note on the product page) and no clear migration path.
- mastax 3y agoTwo years' notice is more of an Apple-like deprecation timeline.
- amtamt 3y ago> since MariaBD and MySQL are more-or-less drop-in replacements of each other Not anymore for a while, unless application developer has been very careful in using DB features. Also, there are things like how indexing differs in two. If ORMs have been used, without a good DBA being available... there are many landmines on the migration path.
- isoprophlex 3y agoThe people paying for the horse manure aren't the people who have to wade into the horse manure every day...
- juliand 3y agoWhat's wrong with them? If you happen to have some sort of microsoft dependency, they are a good choice for you. Not perfect, as any other cloud provider, but a good choice nonetheless.
- redwood 3y agoIf you've had the chance to build with either of their two major competitors, the difference is night and day in terms of quality
- MSM 3y agoMy experience is that it's night and day... in favor of Microsoft. Caveat is that I'm on the data side, but AWS is a hodge podge of open source projects that they "integrated" (poorly). There's issues with data type mismatches between glue catalog and Athena/Presto, you can throw your data into Redshift but that's behind its own security curtain in postgres. You can move your data via glue, emr, MWAA, etc. but they all feel bolted on and integration is always more painful than it needs to be. Microsoft, meanwhile, is moving towards synapse and fabric which is just everything you need in one spot, (more) easily integrated. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the vast, majority of companies I've worked with don't have the expertise or desire to put together some bespoke architecture taking into consideration the 5 options they have every single step along the way. They want something they can use out of the box.
- Jgrubb 3y agoWe have the same architecture deployed on all 3, and they're all good at something and suck at something.
- _cenw 3y agoSame reason companies switch to Teams: Microsoft gets mindshare of controllers and executives with nice sounding bundle discounts (they're usually already using Azure AAD and/or Office 365) on a supposedly fungible services that really are not. Usually they are much worse.
- bloqs 3y agoThey think they have more people with no option than they do and its going to cost them
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- angio 3y agoIn my experience (sticking to base services like vm, k8s and blob storage) they are more reliable than GCP and less confusing than AWS. They're managed offering is bad, but I don't touch managed services anymore after getting burned by them several times.
- redwood 3y agoI'm surprised to hear you say that, VM and storage primitives seem incredibly unreliable though they have been progressing
- marklubi 3y agoThe Azure SQL Server offering is spectacular. I've been using their multi-region replication, and they offer point-in-time restores if something were to happen. Also, they have really good documentation for high-availability (e.g., paired regions)
- mardifoufs 3y agoLess confusing than aws? I had such a hard time with enterprise apps, AD apps, service principals... And you kind of need to use Azure AD to manage resources and access for tons of products.
- andix 3y agoI would consider AWS, Google Cloud and Azure to be very similar products. There are many pros and cons for each, but no general red flags for any of them.
- bob1029 3y agoBecause it is a legitimately good platform. For some of us, being completely locked in is an explicit objective. We brag to our customers about the fact that our only major technology vendor is Microsoft. We use AWS but only incidentally for things Azure isn't fantastic at right now. It's nice not having to constantly think about what to paint on the canvas. If you allow them to, Microsoft can completely guide your IT journey. If you don't constantly dig your heels in and keep your arms and legs inside the ride, this generally works out. The part where it gets shitty is when you absolutely insist on fighting against their patterns. You may win in the short term, but you have to be prepared for the long term effects and downstream frustration. A good example of the "don't fight it" for us was throwing away our custom logger in favor of Microsoft's application insights crap. I don't like it in nerd terms (because I still think the custom system was better in most ways), but in business terms, it's infinitely better for all involved - The chances I can find someone on LinkedIn who can manage my Azure logging infrastructure are infinitely greater than finding someone who has experience with my custom logger's private repository.
- arrakeenrevived 3y ago>We brag to our customers about the fact that our only major technology vendor is Microsoft. If anyone bragged to me about this I would laugh in their face. You're putting your entire company at major risk. Sometimes it has benefits, and sometimes its necessary, to use something like Azure. But I would never actively seek tying your existence solely to a single company, nor would I be happy about it. And I would certainly never _brag_ about it. That's insane.
- gregd 3y agoOh for crying out loud, I’m so over this holier than thou attitude. Every company and every vendor has strengths and weaknesses. Laughing in someone’s face for choosing to use one platform is ridiculous at best. My entire almost 30 year career has been Microsoft centered, except for brief stints with Novell, mainframes, and OS/2. And based on my anecdotal evidence over many companies and many years, Microsoft has been pretty solid.
- AraceliHarker 3y agoIf you use Microsoft 365, the combination with Azure is significantly cheaper than using other public clouds.
- theownan 3y ago[dead]
- Jgrubb 3y agoI'll tell you what Azure does better - way better - than the other big 2 American vendors: they make it vastly easier for the people who pay the bills to understand what's going on (without having to spend 10 years as a Devops engineer first).
- laurels-marts 3y agoThis is what I've enjoyed about Azure the most - it's all quite simple. However, due to accounting shenanigans our entire company is going to migrate from Azure to AWS. I'm extremely curious as to what that transition is going to look like.
- grobbyy 3y agoI generally pick AWS, but Azure is a close second and we use it for specific things too. Aside from GPT access, Microsoft gets compliance right. Working with medical, military, or some types of educational, Azure is a better choice. I like that things I did over a decade ago on AWS still work. I don't like that Google throws me on the curb every few months. Azure is in between, but closer to AWS. 95% of the cost is maintenance, so AWS > Azure >> Google.