4 ms·
they're not insanely good, they're just very close to the cost of the actual financed hardware. AWS et al. charge insane markups because people fall for their
by beachstartup 12y ago
they're not insanely good, they're just very close to the cost of the actual financed hardware.
AWS et al. charge insane markups because people fall for their marketing, which is cleverly disguised as spec sheets and technical documentation and other things engineers who think they are not susceptible to marketing fall easily for.
someone's paying for all those free AWS instances, and it ain't the low end customers.
edit: if you want to know the true price of the hardware, take the purchase price of your standard supermicro server, and multiply it by .025 - that's what big companies pay per month for hardware, usually on 3-year leases.
i.e. $10,000 box = costs $250/month. A decent cloud provider can usually get about $3000+ a month of revenue off of a box like that. even after you add power, networking, staff, it's still a large markup.
- tracker1 12y agoAnd, lets say you only need 3-5 of those $250/month instances... given AWS's services (or azure, or google) it isn't really a bad deal. I'm not saying it's for everyone. I'm still running some personal projects on smaller hosting providers... but with a modest budget, AWS and the like are decent offerings for what you get. If you're designing for distributed data/services from the start, it's better still.
- beachstartup 12y agoi think you misread what i typed. the entire $10k server costs amazon $250/month.