Live data from Hacker News

It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

vanityfair.com

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#41
post #8

There you have it folks - another large corporation gaining political power.

What's your comprehensive alternative? If you "want to do something BIG" , that "BIG" thing is, by definition, going to have an impact. That is to say, it will exert some form of power . And you're probably going to have to do that with other people. Probably in the form of a corporation.

A much smaller military!

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#43
Why would such a massively important backbone of US defense want to rely on only a single provider? It should be using all 3 of the major players (or others) and even some on premise stuff. This seems like a nightmare waiting to happen, and crony capitalism at its finest. The fact that Amazon says in the article that using fail overs to other providers is some hassle...is just amazing.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#44

FWIW, it's a long-time, standard complaint by the losers that the specs were written in a way that favored the winner. On one hand, it's an obvious tactic for insiders to favor certain outsiders. On the other, of course the winner has capabilities that better suit the specs - that's the goal of competitive bidding and we should hope that it's true of all winning bidders. So the fact that the winner's capabilities mat…

On the other hand doesn't match much with reality, and "regulatory capture" is well documented and it seems that is exactly what has happened here. The big 3, AWS, GSC and Azure should all three be used, at the very least as fail overs.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#45
post #14

Seems a bit too tailored though - "To even make a bid, a provider must maintain a distance of at least 150 miles between its data centers, a prerequisite that only Amazon can currently meet. JEDI also asks for “32 GB of RAM”—the precise specification of Amazon’s services. (Microsoft, by contrast, offers only 28 GB, and Google provides 30 GB.) In places, JEDI echoes Amazon’s own language: It calls for a “ruggedized” s…

It sounds like the military wants what Amazon can provide, but is allowing other competitors to step up and give it a better deal. There are obvious reasons why a military customer would want distance between data centers and ruggedized storage, that's surely one of the reasons why Amazon has implemented them.

[deleted]

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#47

Why would such a massively important backbone of US defense want to rely on only a single provider? It should be using all 3 of the major players (or others) and even some on premise stuff. This seems like a nightmare waiting to happen, and crony capitalism at its finest. The fact that Amazon says in the article that using fail overs to other providers is some hassle...is just amazing.

Because government contracts of this size play by different rules. They're not using Amazon as a customer like normal companies -- they're hiring Amazon the firm to build something specific for them.

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#49

I have DoD clients currently doing app dev on new and replacement (for legacy) systems. This writers attempt at making the DoD contract look like a conspiracy is infuriating. The developer experience in the current data center ecosystem is toxic. The infrastructure and insecurity woes compound daily. I don’t care how much Bezos makes, he has a great product and DoD, nay the country, need this. GovCloud would be ice w…

> Before you respond with virtue signaling about war know that most DoD software is for logistics. Done better it boils down to not wasting tax payer money.

It is not "virtue signaling" to be actually anti-war. Most virtue signaling on this topic revolves around the motte-and-bailey of "support the troops". Furthermore, if one is anti-war, then making the military less expensive isn't actually a good thing.

(or you could have just left this last bit out and stayed less political)

Re: It’s Amazon’s Swamp Now

#50
post #47

Why would such a massively important backbone of US defense want to rely on only a single provider? It should be using all 3 of the major players (or others) and even some on premise stuff. This seems like a nightmare waiting to happen, and crony capitalism at its finest. The fact that Amazon says in the article that using fail overs to other providers is some hassle...is just amazing.

Because government contracts of this size play by different rules. They're not using Amazon as a customer like normal companies -- they're hiring Amazon the firm to build something specific for them.

A government contract where the sole company that can ever win the contract also says that fail overs to other providers is bad. So if Amazon goes down, the DoD is shit out of luck. I don't see how that's not a national security problem. Not only that, but after the $10 Billion is expended the DoD is vendor locked. How people don't see this as a major problem/cronyism is baffling. The vendor lock itself is bad enough.
Post reply on HN