3 ms·

There's a certain value proposition to the cloud that I think the author is completely missing. Yes it is cheaper to run all this stuff yourself on a VPS but yo

There's a certain value proposition to the cloud that I think the author is completely missing. Yes it is cheaper to run all this stuff yourself on a VPS but you still "pay" for those things with your time. Right now I run a SaaS platform entirely in the cloud. I am fully aware I am paying more for a managed Postgres cluster versus spinning one up myself and I'm paying more for a managed docker service than I would if I just spun up some EC2's myself or went for a VPS. But right now I'm also working on the project entirely solo so I have to be careful about what I commit my time to. Sure I could save some $$$ by managing my own infra but the time it would take to spin that up and maintain it will cut into the time I have to build new features for my app. I could hire a contractor to help me maintain that infra but then it goes from being the cheapest option to the most expensive option because I'm paying someone to help with it. The cloud isn't cheaper than running your own infra, but it's sure as hell cheaper than running your own infra + paying someone to help you run it. Down the road when (hopefully) my company has more scale and we have dedicated folks for infrastructure, then I can start looking into lowering costs on the cloud side because those infra folks are gonna be working for me regardless of where I run the app, but for now when it's between doing it myself and hiring someone to help me, the value prop of a managed service is undeniable.

sylens 3y ago
100% spot on. You can tell this is written by an IC engineer and not a manager/director who would be well aware of the resource costs of doing all of the manual install/configuration work outlined in the article.
- rubyfan 3y ago
  Not necessarily. Professional managers can overvalue managed service because they perceive scarcity of skilled resources. Cloud and managed services has an overall negative effect on engineers ability to develop talent thereby exacerbating the scarcity issue. It’s actually harmful for managers as well… over time we’ll need less of them too (since they outsourced part of the job of managing).
- vidarh 3y ago
  Having been in both positions, my experience is that a whole lot of the idea that cloud is "cheaper" comes from people without awareness on how much of a commodity the skill set to set up and manage non-cloud setups is. You can reduce this all to predictable monthly bills scalable up and down by small fractions of headcount with ease most places. At the very small scale when trying to start something, do what you're comfortable with, because whatever you're not is likely to cost you time. Above that, it's down to what your margins are like, and how large a part the hosting is, but it's rare for cloud to be the cheaper option. Certainly not at list prices - while you're small enough to pay list prices you're being screwed over massively.
  - JackSlateur 3y ago
    > how much of a commodity the skill set to set up and manage non-cloud setups is. I've seen so many teams failing this So many little teams actually managing non-cloud setups "Commodity" ? Not here
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Yes, commodity. That doesn't mean anyone bothered to hire for that skill at your employers, but you can go out and hire this skill by the hour from any number of providers. The same problem of teams lacking ops skills exists in companies doing cloud stuff too - often because they've bought the fiction that cloud doesn't need devops.
- deeth_starr_v 3y ago
  Or even an IC that is new to setting up infra and so they relish it. Do it a couple of times and you start appreciating managed solutions
dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
After spending a lot of my time doing both, I can offer some perspective on that. It's not that I disagree, and many people feel the same as you, but very often it results from underestimating the time, experience and knowledge needed to create a secure and efficient cloud environment. Also, RDS makes many things easier for you (but also less flexible), but some things can't be automated and still require manual intervention like major version upgrades.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Same. I love RDS. It's amazingly convenient and I use it when I can justify it. It's also really expensive and I can - and have - easily build postgres setups w/replication across multiple data centers in several countries and still come out cheaper (including time spent) than anything remotely similar capacity in RDS. It's not hard, but it's more work than me, and so I'm happy to let AWS do it when I work somewhere where we can afford it. Cloud has a role many places, but not in setups that are cost sensitive at scale.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>Yes it is cheaper to run all this stuff yourself on a VPS but you still "pay" for those things with your time. There's also liability. If you pay someone for services rendered, you can throw liability on them. If you run stuff yourself, you're liable. Data breach at <cloud> for your services? Hang them out to dry. Data breach on your own server? You're fucked.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Unless you're huge, you'll find most providers will limit their liability to the cost of the service, which is usually a rounding error of your risk. If you think you're covered in any meaningful way with a standard contract, you most likely didn't read their terms. If liability is a concern, you need insurance.
- 63stack 3y ago
  I'll believe it when I see it. There are major security breaches every year, and I have never heard any company get fined or taking any responsibility. If LastPass and Okta can get away with leaking passwords, then google (or any other cloud provider) can get away with absolutely anything.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"The cloud isn't cheaper than running your own infra, but it's sure as hell cheaper than running your own infra + paying someone to help you run it." Two different things: 1. infrastructure (computers) and 2. running the infrastructure (running the computers) Obviously, purchasing computers is more expensive that not purchasing them, i.e., using someone else's computers. The later is known, in marketing terms, as "cloud computing". The remaining question is whether (a) paying for running own computers is less or more expensive than (b) paying for running someone else's computers, i.e., cloud computing. Or whether the costs are the same. For some, the fundamental problem posed by "cloud computing" is not the cost. It is the fact that "the cloud" is someone else's computers. Handling data that does not belong to them. In some cases having customers share the same computers with each other.

sylens 3y ago

100% spot on. You can tell this is written by an IC engineer and not a manager/director who would be well aware of the resource costs of doing all of the manual install/configuration work outlined in the article.

rubyfan 3y ago
Not necessarily. Professional managers can overvalue managed service because they perceive scarcity of skilled resources. Cloud and managed services has an overall negative effect on engineers ability to develop talent thereby exacerbating the scarcity issue. It’s actually harmful for managers as well… over time we’ll need less of them too (since they outsourced part of the job of managing).
vidarh 3y ago
Having been in both positions, my experience is that a whole lot of the idea that cloud is "cheaper" comes from people without awareness on how much of a commodity the skill set to set up and manage non-cloud setups is. You can reduce this all to predictable monthly bills scalable up and down by small fractions of headcount with ease most places. At the very small scale when trying to start something, do what you're comfortable with, because whatever you're not is likely to cost you time. Above that, it's down to what your margins are like, and how large a part the hosting is, but it's rare for cloud to be the cheaper option. Certainly not at list prices - while you're small enough to pay list prices you're being screwed over massively.
- JackSlateur 3y ago
  > how much of a commodity the skill set to set up and manage non-cloud setups is. I've seen so many teams failing this So many little teams actually managing non-cloud setups "Commodity" ? Not here
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Yes, commodity. That doesn't mean anyone bothered to hire for that skill at your employers, but you can go out and hire this skill by the hour from any number of providers. The same problem of teams lacking ops skills exists in companies doing cloud stuff too - often because they've bought the fiction that cloud doesn't need devops.
deeth_starr_v 3y ago
Or even an IC that is new to setting up infra and so they relish it. Do it a couple of times and you start appreciating managed solutions

dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago

After spending a lot of my time doing both, I can offer some perspective on that. It's not that I disagree, and many people feel the same as you, but very often it results from underestimating the time, experience and knowledge needed to create a secure and efficient cloud environment. Also, RDS makes many things easier for you (but also less flexible), but some things can't be automated and still require manual intervention like major version upgrades.

vidarh 3y ago
Same. I love RDS. It's amazingly convenient and I use it when I can justify it. It's also really expensive and I can - and have - easily build postgres setups w/replication across multiple data centers in several countries and still come out cheaper (including time spent) than anything remotely similar capacity in RDS. It's not hard, but it's more work than me, and so I'm happy to let AWS do it when I work somewhere where we can afford it. Cloud has a role many places, but not in setups that are cost sensitive at scale.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>Yes it is cheaper to run all this stuff yourself on a VPS but you still "pay" for those things with your time. There's also liability. If you pay someone for services rendered, you can throw liability on them. If you run stuff yourself, you're liable. Data breach at <cloud> for your services? Hang them out to dry. Data breach on your own server? You're fucked.

vidarh 3y ago
Unless you're huge, you'll find most providers will limit their liability to the cost of the service, which is usually a rounding error of your risk. If you think you're covered in any meaningful way with a standard contract, you most likely didn't read their terms. If liability is a concern, you need insurance.
63stack 3y ago
I'll believe it when I see it. There are major security breaches every year, and I have never heard any company get fined or taking any responsibility. If LastPass and Okta can get away with leaking passwords, then google (or any other cloud provider) can get away with absolutely anything.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"The cloud isn't cheaper than running your own infra, but it's sure as hell cheaper than running your own infra + paying someone to help you run it." Two different things: 1. infrastructure (computers) and 2. running the infrastructure (running the computers) Obviously, purchasing computers is more expensive that not purchasing them, i.e., using someone else's computers. The later is known, in marketing terms, as "cloud computing". The remaining question is whether (a) paying for running own computers is less or more expensive than (b) paying for running someone else's computers, i.e., cloud computing. Or whether the costs are the same. For some, the fundamental problem posed by "cloud computing" is not the cost. It is the fact that "the cloud" is someone else's computers. Handling data that does not belong to them. In some cases having customers share the same computers with each other.