4 ms·
Why is the main focus on Aws costs when in comparison the HR costs are multiple of the Aws costs? Is it because were too technically minded here? Is it cause th
by FollowSteph3 13y ago
Why is the main focus on Aws costs when in comparison the HR costs are multiple of the Aws costs? Is it because were too technically minded here? Is it cause the charts in the article only showed the Aws costs whereas including the HR costs would have changed that perception. I don't know but i just keep seeing people focus on the Aws cost which was not the real problem in comparison.
It makes me think of bad pre-optimizations ;)
- pistle 13y agoNote my other comment. It hints at this. You make the point clearer. The technical costs are not damning. Where is the concern about the other costs, which aren't being picked apart? If AWS was 0, it's still unsustainable growth until someone (swisspol?) dispels our concern there. Another big void is who was pulling the plug and how/what are the founders and direct employees feeling? I'd like to know if there were ship-abandoners, etc. What is the turning point and what were they decision makers watching that caused the shift? This doesn't look like a technical learning here. This looks like a business learning. So, while they're being transparent and it's still fresh :) share. We can A/B test buttons. How do you A/B test business decisions? It looks like a bunch of people can armchair this thing, technically, to the point where it makes me wonder if someone could NOT take on nearly the funding and make the $100M company on this idea with just some bootstrapping. Also... how was there not a pricing model that scaled with use?