I guess I was being too dry, but I was suggesting that such massive deployments in multiple regions costs far more in ongoing fees and engineering effort than a

I guess I was being too dry, but I was suggesting that such massive deployments in multiple regions costs far more in ongoing fees and engineering effort than an equivalently performing environment that is managed by the end user (campaign). And yet with all that expense you still end up with less reliability and transient issues that you end up compensating for by even more over provisioning and rearchitecture. AWS is good for organizations that need to minimize upfront costs, orgs too small to support suitable ops staff, overflow traffic, people who hope they're about to hockeystick growth or have no idea if they'll even be around in a year. Also it's good for people busy wasting limited partner's money. It is, however, a pretty bad choice for a campaign with huge coffers, a large staff, certainty about the length of time they'll be in operation, and a very predictable seasonal use pattern. And of course they do it all with money from small contributors. I'm not saying that aws or especially cloud models aren't a wonderful tool in a lot of cases. But we're training a whole generation of web jockies who are reflexively going to AWS because they think ops and infrastructure is scary.