4 ms·

If product revenue doesn't grow faster or even along with traffic (expenses) it will eventually knock itself out of business one way or another.

creshal 12y ago
Turning sustained DDoS attacks into revenue sounds like an intriguing business schemes.
- dreamins 12y ago
  What do you think. Sustained DDoS attack must at least generate enough revenue to cover sustained expenses if they are incurred or no?
- dreamins 12y ago
  Also usually AWS doesn't turn attack into revenue, they push customer up the "support tier" (gold/platinum whatever they are called now) and strip the DDOS traffic from expenses as much as possible. Those tiers are quite expensive though, but are fixed support costs more or less. My general point is: AWS is a business, and it operates as one. There are no hollywood style bad guys sitting there in cubicle dungeons on chests filled with gold thinking how to extract money, quite the contrary. It is understandable that customer cannot pay unlimited (from customers perspective) charges, but AWS pretty much incurs them, as customer being ddosed is consuming resources that would be otherwise be sold to others, or engineer time that would be put into developing new features and attracting new customers.
mkohlmyr 12y ago
That simply isn't reasonable. Name one business other than maybe network providers who's revenues grow in direct proportion to incoming packets, regardless of content? You can't disregard any business that doesn't fulfil that property as being "eventually unsustainable".
- dreamins 12y ago
  My comment was a bit more general than pure "packet". I agree thats where the disconnect between low lever service provider and customers come - providers revenues and expenses are "packets", while they don't always translate to revenue for customers. However my note was about general "traffic", if one sells video views for example, and revenues do not grow inline with adjusted to [almost always decreasing] bandwidth costs sooner or later that will become a big problem.

creshal 12y ago

Turning sustained DDoS attacks into revenue sounds like an intriguing business schemes.

dreamins 12y ago
What do you think. Sustained DDoS attack must at least generate enough revenue to cover sustained expenses if they are incurred or no?
dreamins 12y ago
Also usually AWS doesn't turn attack into revenue, they push customer up the "support tier" (gold/platinum whatever they are called now) and strip the DDOS traffic from expenses as much as possible. Those tiers are quite expensive though, but are fixed support costs more or less. My general point is: AWS is a business, and it operates as one. There are no hollywood style bad guys sitting there in cubicle dungeons on chests filled with gold thinking how to extract money, quite the contrary. It is understandable that customer cannot pay unlimited (from customers perspective) charges, but AWS pretty much incurs them, as customer being ddosed is consuming resources that would be otherwise be sold to others, or engineer time that would be put into developing new features and attracting new customers.

mkohlmyr 12y ago

That simply isn't reasonable. Name one business other than maybe network providers who's revenues grow in direct proportion to incoming packets, regardless of content? You can't disregard any business that doesn't fulfil that property as being "eventually unsustainable".

dreamins 12y ago
My comment was a bit more general than pure "packet". I agree thats where the disconnect between low lever service provider and customers come - providers revenues and expenses are "packets", while they don't always translate to revenue for customers. However my note was about general "traffic", if one sells video views for example, and revenues do not grow inline with adjusted to [almost always decreasing] bandwidth costs sooner or later that will become a big problem.