3 ms·
> The cost of 120,000/year for Aurora seems like it would be less than the cost of development/organization time for the custom database Only if they planned o
by rdtsc 3y ago
> The cost of 120,000/year for Aurora seems like it would be less than the cost of development/organization time for the custom database
Only if they planned on hiring someone just to develop this new database and if they switch to Aurora they’d let them go immediately. If the said developer was already costing them $250k to maintain and develop the application and work on top of Aurora cost seems like a good way to save $100k/year.
- organsnyder 3y agoThere’s the opportunity cost of whatever else they could have been paying that developer to work on.
- grogenaut 3y agoAgreed, a developer that can pull this off is pretty good, if maybe distracted by shiny objects, what could they do working on the actual product instead of this technological terror?
- rdtsc 3y agoTrue. Also, to your point, one could argue that if that developer leaves, they'd have an easier time hiring anyone with Aurora experience as opposed to someone to learn and maintain the custom database. But at the same time, Aurora costs could also scale with usage. It may cost $120k one year, $180k next year, $500k the year after. If the database they have now is well designed after it's already built it may not need active development every year but adding a feature here and there. Also, switching back to Aurora could also be an opportunity cost "we should have written our own thing and could have saved millions ...".
- addicted 3y agoWell considering the cost is lower than Aurora isn’t the opportunity cost in favor of the home built situation.
- organsnyder 3y agoThat’s only true if Aurora is the most valuable thing that developer could be working on.