4 ms·

Those fees are egregious, but they don't make it any harder to switch off AWS. The cost of the monumental amount of engineering time such a task takes is a cou

Those fees are egregious, but they don't make it any harder to switch off AWS. The cost of the monumental amount of engineering time such a task takes is a couple orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the data egress. It's almost to the point where you wouldn't even bother to factor into a cost calculation.

bananaquant 2y ago
That doesn't really make sense. AWS is very profitable [1]. That means that whatever the amount of money they put into engineering, their customers pay, and then some. As for the customers, very few of them operate at a scale that requires the monumental amount of engineering required to replicate the whole of AWS with its many dozens of services. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-reports-13-5-billion-profit-in-second-quarter-driven-by-aws/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-reports-...
- Sayrus 2y ago
  Setting up a database, backup processes, object storage, archiving, and especially compliance is a huge upfront cost for a small company. It is true that you pay for the engineering done by AWS, but you also need to take into account the network effect and compatibility with third-parties. With this being said, AWS is still very expensive. But AWS being profitable doesn't imply it is profitable for you to run your own infrastructure. The same way it is not profitable for you to run your own shipping company, or your own internet backbone provider.
  - bananaquant 2y ago
    Indeed, that is decided on a case-by-case basis. So if a company determines that moving on-premise is cheaper than AWS, perhaps that is actually true for them.
the_duke 2y ago
That entirely depends on how you build your stack. I always strongly push for setting up the whole infrastructure with a future migration in mind, and without tying the company closely to specific cloud services. You lose out on some of the better cloud features, but it's worth it in cash alone: being able to say "we have built our stack to be platform agnostic, we can switch within a month" is very useful in discussions with sales...

bananaquant 2y ago

That doesn't really make sense. AWS is very profitable [1]. That means that whatever the amount of money they put into engineering, their customers pay, and then some. As for the customers, very few of them operate at a scale that requires the monumental amount of engineering required to replicate the whole of AWS with its many dozens of services. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-reports-13-5-billion-profit-in-second-quarter-driven-by-aws/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-reports-...

Sayrus 2y ago
Setting up a database, backup processes, object storage, archiving, and especially compliance is a huge upfront cost for a small company. It is true that you pay for the engineering done by AWS, but you also need to take into account the network effect and compatibility with third-parties. With this being said, AWS is still very expensive. But AWS being profitable doesn't imply it is profitable for you to run your own infrastructure. The same way it is not profitable for you to run your own shipping company, or your own internet backbone provider.
- bananaquant 2y ago
  Indeed, that is decided on a case-by-case basis. So if a company determines that moving on-premise is cheaper than AWS, perhaps that is actually true for them.

the_duke 2y ago

That entirely depends on how you build your stack. I always strongly push for setting up the whole infrastructure with a future migration in mind, and without tying the company closely to specific cloud services. You lose out on some of the better cloud features, but it's worth it in cash alone: being able to say "we have built our stack to be platform agnostic, we can switch within a month" is very useful in discussions with sales...