Microsoft: Cloud services demand up, prioritization rules in place

Post by p1necone » Sun, Mar 29, 2020, 10:47 PM UTC

pwarner wrote: post #43

wikibob wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slack’s video conferencing sucks. They bought ScreenHero and tried to integrate it. They screwed it up so bad that the ScreenHero founder quit after 4 years and has gone and rewrote it and called it Screen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22676040

Yeah Slack themselves use Zoom. Slack is a channel based messaging tool, it integrates with best of class video tools like Zoom and file storage tools like Box or even SharePoint. Teams does it all OKish, although the channel based messaging is probably the worst part. It's sort of wrong to look at Teams as a Slack replacement. Well, it is for who just want chat, and don't care about channel messaging.

Post by p2t2p » Sun, Mar 29, 2020, 10:47 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #58

pwarner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS spot prices are rising last 3 weeks.

Is there a graph somewhere that shows by how much?

Post by AmericanChopper » Sun, Mar 29, 2020, 10:56 PM UTC

dfee wrote: post #57

burkaman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would certainly look bad, and I think it would potentially be illegal in some states. https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou... For example, Georgia: > Selling items or services determined by the Governor during a declared state of emergency to be necessary for public safety at a higher cost than they were immediately prior to the declaration. Kansas: > For any supplier of a "necessary proper…

I don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add on…

Post by burkaman » Sun, Mar 29, 2020, 11:04 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #85

dfee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how I feel about this. In the general case, I feel like price gouging during emergencies is unethical. But, when there is a non-artificial supply and demand issue, I struggle with the derivative effects of these policies. My concern is that rather than simply evaluating on the consumers ability to pay (and backwards-looking at prior statements instead of increased go-forward costs), these policies add on…

Ability to pay is only one aspect of demand. There’s also how much you actually want it, and the amount of opportunity cost you’re willing to pay. Keeping prices artificially low keeps demand artificially high, while supply doesn’t increase, or cannot increase if it’s inelastic.

Post by closeparen » Sun, Mar 29, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

bachmeier wrote: post #62

closeparen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It's important to the public that scarce goods instead by allocated by willingness to stand in line. What does standing in line mean for a corporation that could be anywhere in the world? Maybe some kind of proof-of-work scheme for the CEO or majority owner? Azure could service VM creation requests in the order of their creation, but "take a number" doesn't work as well. The opportunity cost of what else you c…

> It's important to the public that scarce goods instead by allocated by willingness to stand in line. It's important to keep in mind that a higher price is unlikely to lead to much additional capacity due to the nature of this shock. Companies have to do business with their customers for many years after this is over. "Sorry, we're overloaded with demand due to this crisis" sounds a lot better than "Pay us ten times…