5 ms·

Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just

Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month?

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month? People who value a little extra effort at startup as being a cost that is more than $200/month over the life of their use of dotCloud. There's a lot of cases where that could be true, especially if the extra effort and moving to a different platform is deferred, rather than permanent. There are many times where doing something now (that isn't necessary for immediate goals, but is useful for long-term savings) has greater opportunity costs than doing it later. (Lots of times when the reverse is true, as well.)
benologist 13y ago
You're asking who would pay more for dotCloud vs. DIY on Amazon who themselves have a huge markup on their servers against traditional hosting?
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  I compared to EC2 primarily because it also has hourly pricing. If I compared to DigitalOcean instead, then DotCloud would look even worse -- about 10x more expensive.
  - benologist 13y ago
    Correct. So who would pay for x when y? Everyone who wants x, not y.
darkarmani 13y ago
It seems to be working well for people paying for EC2 instances when they could be racking the hardware themselves. Having APIs, support, and a dedicated team handling the infrastructure is worth paying for to plenty of people.
girvo 13y ago
Me, for one. I CBF diddling around with firing up AMI's and dealing with everything myself anymore. A lot of developers are like that, too.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  Is the convenience of not having to do the extra initial setup and occasional maintenance really worth the substantial markup every month?
  - girvo 13y ago
    Yep. You are truly underestimating how lazy I (and others) can be. And besides, being able to have support to turn to is quite a bonus: I don't want to be the support guy for this sort of stuff.
andyhmltn 13y ago
Who in their right mind would pay for a dedicated server monthly when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to buy an inhouse server and pay less than a quarter as much in the long run? You see where I'm trying to go with that?
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  Not quite. Buying server hardware requires a substantial up-front monetary commitment. Once we have a good self-hosted PaaS package like Flynn, setting up an instance on an IaaS provider should (in theory) require a very small amount of time.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month? People who value a little extra effort at startup as being a cost that is more than $200/month over the life of their use of dotCloud. There's a lot of cases where that could be true, especially if the extra effort and moving to a different platform is deferred, rather than permanent. There are many times where doing something now (that isn't necessary for immediate goals, but is useful for long-term savings) has greater opportunity costs than doing it later. (Lots of times when the reverse is true, as well.)

benologist 13y ago

You're asking who would pay more for dotCloud vs. DIY on Amazon who themselves have a huge markup on their servers against traditional hosting?

mwcampbell 13y ago
I compared to EC2 primarily because it also has hourly pricing. If I compared to DigitalOcean instead, then DotCloud would look even worse -- about 10x more expensive.
- benologist 13y ago
  Correct. So who would pay for x when y? Everyone who wants x, not y.

darkarmani 13y ago

It seems to be working well for people paying for EC2 instances when they could be racking the hardware themselves. Having APIs, support, and a dedicated team handling the infrastructure is worth paying for to plenty of people.

girvo 13y ago

Me, for one. I CBF diddling around with firing up AMI's and dealing with everything myself anymore. A lot of developers are like that, too.

mwcampbell 13y ago
Is the convenience of not having to do the extra initial setup and occasional maintenance really worth the substantial markup every month?
- girvo 13y ago
  Yep. You are truly underestimating how lazy I (and others) can be. And besides, being able to have support to turn to is quite a bonus: I don't want to be the support guy for this sort of stuff.

andyhmltn 13y ago

Who in their right mind would pay for a dedicated server monthly when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to buy an inhouse server and pay less than a quarter as much in the long run? You see where I'm trying to go with that?

mwcampbell 13y ago
Not quite. Buying server hardware requires a substantial up-front monetary commitment. Once we have a good self-hosted PaaS package like Flynn, setting up an instance on an IaaS provider should (in theory) require a very small amount of time.