5 ms·
Absolutely. I’ve been a customer for many years and it’s always been a pleasure to interact with such a simple, transparent and “to the point” UI. The fact that
by isodev 3y ago
Absolutely. I’ve been a customer for many years and it’s always been a pleasure to interact with such a simple, transparent and “to the point” UI. The fact that they are a tiny team also bumps it up the list for me.
- tbarbugli 3y agowell, they shut this down probably because they cannot afford to keep a product that bring little revenue. I never heard of AWS retiring a product (I am excluding ancient stuff like VPC classic and SimpleDB, both had an upgrade path to something superior)
- dtech 3y agoI assume AWS fully automates their stuff so the maintenance is ~0 outside their normal datacenter and SRE stuff which amortizes the total cost to ~0, so why retire a service? Just stop development.
- Arbortheus 3y agoThere’s no such thing as zero cost to development teams. Who patches the security vulnerabilities? Who answers esoteric customer questions for customers with premium support contracts?
- ransom1538 3y ago[flagged]
- isodev 3y agoAWS is Big Tech. It locks you in, and it's not easy to guard your users' privacy against them. Smaller providers (and also local in the case of 84codes) are preferred.
- throwawaysleep 3y agoEvidently not, as few are willing to pay a large premium for them.
- isodev 3y agoEvidently? Clarify please.
- a2800276 3y agoI imagine they meant: evidently not, because ElephantSQL is shutting down their service.
- isodev 3y agoThe post from 84codes clearly states a different motivation. If they want to focus their efforts elsewhere, that’s their decision. One doesn’t need to be “the provider” to count as success. It’s the whole point of staying small to mid-sized.
- zilti 3y agoLarge premium? LOL! It is AWS you pay a large premium for.
- sofixa 3y ago> and it's not easy to guard your users' privacy against them Source? > Smaller providers (and also local in the case of 84codes) are preferred AWS have a reputation and stability to keep because half of the internet, governments, banks, etc. rely on them. If a small provider makes a mistake, or goes bankrupt due to unforseen circumstances, you're left holding the bag on your own.
- rossjudson 3y agoYou're being polite asking for a source. The source will, as it always does, turn out to be "some random stuff I read on the internet don't know where but everybody knows this is true". Insert LLM-generated variation thereof.
- stonogo 3y agoIf AWS goes down, and it does, you're still left holding the bag, because no one customer is important enough for them to actually support. You can leave sad voicemails for your customer account representative, and pretty much nothing else. The idea of AWS as some kind of bag-holding partner is risible. They're a machine that helps convert capex to opex. Any systems services they may offer along the way are purely secondary.
- sofixa 3y ago> If AWS goes down, and it does Rarely. And never if you've setup your environment across multiple regions.
- drdaeman 3y agoWhit AWS you probably have to hire a decent engineer who knows how to build stuff the right way (never touch the dashboards, do all through well-tested, declarative, repeatable IaaC, set up proper replication and backups, preemptively simulating the outages, and so on). But unless you need a complex control plane or highly dynamic scaling on a daily basis you also can do exact same thing with any non-cloud provider (and a CDN). Order some bare metal, roll out, enjoy - if it goes bad, order bare metal from someone else, redeploy to it, restore from backups, and recover in about the same time (half a day) it takes AWS to fix us-east-1 when it fails. It also probably will save a lot of money (NATgw bills alone) in the long term.
- eddd-ddde 3y agoAWS can continue to provide you a product that consistently loses money because they have a gazillion million dollars. They have the ability to kill comeptition by losing money until they go broke first.
- riku_iki 3y agoFor AWS such services bring network effect, and pay back in other segments of ecosystem.
- tempnow987 3y agoSimpleDB disappeared off the marketing pages - but I don't think it got shut down in reality until 2020 maybe? It was easily 5+ years after DynamoDB came along. There was definitely a period where there was little SimpleDB availability publicly but on the backend it kept working. Would love it if someone had more of the detailed history.
- ydant 3y agoSimpleDB still works for my company's AWS account. There's been no announcement of a shutdown that I've seen (and I check occasionally since it's almost entirely disappeared from most of AWS's documentation).
- tempnow987 3y agoHaha.. That matches what I experienced. It literally disappeared from everywhere but actually just kept on running.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]