3 ms·
This wouldn't have been enough to save them, but if your AWS bill is $35,000/month, it's likely much cheaper to buy (or even lease) hardware and co-locate -- ev
by spamizbad 13y ago
This wouldn't have been enough to save them, but if your AWS bill is $35,000/month, it's likely much cheaper to buy (or even lease) hardware and co-locate -- even if you factor in making 1-2 new hires to support the hardware.
- wensing 13y agoI'm guessing the effort to switch to a different cloud wasn't something they wanted to invest in?
- jbverschoor 13y agoI'm guessing they just didn't care, because they were VC backed, and didn't understand that 2M is not that much money if you have 6 people and a storage-based hosting service.
- eikenberry 13y agoYou underestimate the costs associated with hardware. Multiple locations, redundant tier 1 pipes, 1-2 new hires per location, etc. While you can save some money, it isn't as much as you'd think.
- steveklabnik 13y agoThey were making enough money to pay the AWS bill; it was the salaries that were too much. They were profitable per-user, they just didn't have enough users. (by 'much' I mean volume, not amount. Developers are expensive.)