4 ms·

>Looking at the websites of those companies, I also wouldn't characterize them as AWS or Google Cloud competitors I'd say they're more "alternatives" at this p

>Looking at the websites of those companies, I also wouldn't characterize them as AWS or Google Cloud competitors I'd say they're more "alternatives" at this point, as the article's title states. But... >They offer Virtual Private Servers, FTP storage, maybe an S3 equivalent and Kubernetes. The number of AWS customers that could survive on these services alone is likely higher than we'd suspect, especially for small companies. Throw in an RDS-equivalent and maybe load-balancing, and the number rises dramatically. Of course, this also assumes the connective tissue is also in place (e.g. VPC, security groups, etc). EDIT: I should've said "the number of AWS customers that currently survive on these services alone..."

graemep 2y ago
> The number of AWS customers that could survive on these services alone is likely higher than we'd suspect, especially for small companies They could, but they will not.If your AWS is small there is no real motive to look for alternatives. Just stick with the brand you know. Even a lot of developers are very resistant to using something 'non-standard'.I have had "thats a weird thing to do" reactions to suggestions such as running Postgres on EC2 because it would be easier than using RDS for a small DB.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >They could, but they will not. I intended to say "the number of AWS customers that currently survive on these services alone...". I've updated the comment. My comment was aimed more at those who assume that providers offering only these services would mean they're technically non-competitive with AWS. My overall point is that these services likely represent what many customers are actually using. If you're in an enterprise shop, this may be less true. Same if you're in a funded startup that's convinced it needs infinite scalability and architects accordingly. But, I do agree that it's hard to convince people to resist the dogma. This may be changing as people are starting to question the value of Big Cloud vs its costs, but we'll have to wait for the dogma to follow to see any real change (for those who have access to Big Cloud).
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  > If your AWS is small there is no real motive to look for alternatives. Just stick with the brand you know. Lots of reasons. Maybe you want a vastly simpler interface and feature set. Maybe AWS doesn't offer servers in your country, and you've got sensitive data. Maybe the US is threatening your country with economic warfare, and you want to move away from US services.
  - graemep 2y ago
    I agree that those are good reasons. In my experience most people do not care about the simpler interface and feature set. They will put extra time into working with AWS or hiring an AWS expert rather than use something simpler. One reason is that non-technical management think something with a web UI is always simpler than doing things on the command line. My favourite AWS service is Lightsail because it lets me ignore the rest of it and keep things simple. People do care about the other two reasons, but only if there is an immediate risk. Most people only care about keeping sensitive data within their country if the law requires it, so that would only be a problem if you are in a country which has such laws, they apply to you with no loopholes, enforces them, and no AWS servers. Smaller companies will not plan for economic warfare unless it is an immediate risk - i.e. sanctions (there are only a few countries that are completely sanctioned). The article is about Nigeria and AWS has no presence in Nigeria (and very little presence elsewhere in Africa) so there is probably more demand for alternatives there. In most of the world they do.

graemep 2y ago

> The number of AWS customers that could survive on these services alone is likely higher than we'd suspect, especially for small companies They could, but they will not.If your AWS is small there is no real motive to look for alternatives. Just stick with the brand you know. Even a lot of developers are very resistant to using something 'non-standard'.I have had "thats a weird thing to do" reactions to suggestions such as running Postgres on EC2 because it would be easier than using RDS for a small DB.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
>They could, but they will not. I intended to say "the number of AWS customers that currently survive on these services alone...". I've updated the comment. My comment was aimed more at those who assume that providers offering only these services would mean they're technically non-competitive with AWS. My overall point is that these services likely represent what many customers are actually using. If you're in an enterprise shop, this may be less true. Same if you're in a funded startup that's convinced it needs infinite scalability and architects accordingly. But, I do agree that it's hard to convince people to resist the dogma. This may be changing as people are starting to question the value of Big Cloud vs its costs, but we'll have to wait for the dogma to follow to see any real change (for those who have access to Big Cloud).
dukeyukey 2y ago
> If your AWS is small there is no real motive to look for alternatives. Just stick with the brand you know. Lots of reasons. Maybe you want a vastly simpler interface and feature set. Maybe AWS doesn't offer servers in your country, and you've got sensitive data. Maybe the US is threatening your country with economic warfare, and you want to move away from US services.
- graemep 2y ago
  I agree that those are good reasons. In my experience most people do not care about the simpler interface and feature set. They will put extra time into working with AWS or hiring an AWS expert rather than use something simpler. One reason is that non-technical management think something with a web UI is always simpler than doing things on the command line. My favourite AWS service is Lightsail because it lets me ignore the rest of it and keep things simple. People do care about the other two reasons, but only if there is an immediate risk. Most people only care about keeping sensitive data within their country if the law requires it, so that would only be a problem if you are in a country which has such laws, they apply to you with no loopholes, enforces them, and no AWS servers. Smaller companies will not plan for economic warfare unless it is an immediate risk - i.e. sanctions (there are only a few countries that are completely sanctioned). The article is about Nigeria and AWS has no presence in Nigeria (and very little presence elsewhere in Africa) so there is probably more demand for alternatives there. In most of the world they do.