Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AWS just went multi-cloud

acloudguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#101

Post by scarface74 »

victor106 wrote: post #78
dboreham wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

While this makes sense what the parent comment said is also true. I always wondered why big enterprise customers are not concerned about lock in. Maybe they cut multi year deals with the big cloud providers?

Have you ever been part of a large scale migration? Even if you try your best to avoid “lock in”. It’s still a multi year, expensive proposition and at the scale of a F500, it adds little business value.

Do you know how many third party services and offerings that the typical F500 depend on? More than 80% have a huge “lock in” to Microsoft.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#102

Post by nullsense »

dboreham wrote: post #63
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

Anyone who is concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#103

Post by Spivak »

sangnoir wrote: post #88
staticassertion wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lock-In is dead simple to avoid with AWS. Even with Lambda, which people tend to point to and say "lock-in!". Even now we've got lambdas running Docker containers. It's a total boogeyman and I've never heard anyone care about it except on HN, where it comes up constantly.

You seem to be agreeing with parent comment, from where I stand. Lock-in may be simple to avoid, but not many people make any effort to avoid it ("There are many fools in business"). I mean, take a look at the number of companies/services that got knocked offline last week because AWS's us-east-1 was fucky: if they are "locked-in" to one AWS region , do you think they'd bother with decoupling from AWS tech in general…

So there's a reason for this that is unfortunate but true. AWS outages make the news and customers treat them like natural disasters. We host a few services on AWS but the bulk of our stuff is on-prem. When AWS has issues none of our customers cared -- they were annoyed that they couldn't do their work but were otherwise totally understanding and none of the blowback fell on us.

When one of our upstream ISPs had an outage and prevented some of customers from being able to reach us people were mad at us even after the explanation. AWS is enough of a household name that you can say sorry "AWS is down right now" and people will sympathize.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#104

Post by scarface74 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #80
dboreham wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

It is easily 10x harder to migrate from on-prem to a cloud, than it is to migrate between clouds. The big cloud providers are all functionally REALLY similar, if you're mostly using the big components: - Object storage is basically identical, often even down to common API wrappers - VMs are VMs - Kubernetes is Kubernetes. Containers are containers. - EMR is Dataproc is whatever Azure has - BigQuery is Redshift is wha…

Just tell that to your PMO and have them give you an estimate about how long it will take to migrate. Then talk to your developers and infrastructure folks and let them do a (bad) estimation about how long it will take to remove all of the hidden dependencies.

That’s not even including the training involved. At the same time, your competitors are actually trying to create products that meet their customers needs while your resources are tied up in migrations.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#105

Post by scarface74 »

hrktb wrote: post #91
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

TripAdvisor had a very strong “no lock in” policy that impacted the technical stacks we could keep/choose when we got bought by them. We could use an nginx installed and maintained on EC2 by ourselves but not the AWS flavor on it, or I guess we’d have needed to fight to get an exception. That’s just an anecdote, but I am sure more companies put real money behind getting “locked in”.

Did avoiding lock in do anything as far as making them more competitive in the marketplace?

How many man hours was spent babysitting infrastructure?

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#106

Post by tuwtuwtuwtuw »

redkoala wrote: post #69
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

It depends on the industry. A lot of retail companies are moving away from Amazon to avoid having competitive data flow through AWS infrastructure. Some companies may have different business units across different cloud providers but push for strategic consolidation on a major cloud provider for new implementations. The heavier the use of cloud native solutions and managed services, the greater the effort to migrate…

That (first paragraph) sounds like a different issue than lock-in.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#107

Post by [deleted] »

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #89
julianozen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I enjoyed my team and the work hours were reasonable. AWS wasn't the type of product work I wanted to keep pursing, but I learned a lot in my time there. Amazon team's culture vary widely depending on the teams budget, management style and deadlines. Overall I enjoyed my time at Amazon

Several posts here mention the importance of budget/funding for creating a good team to work in (which is 100% reasonable - that's true everywhere). I'm curious about how individual teams within Amazon have funding problems. Amazon overall seems to have plenty of money and they seem like the sort of place that wouldn't have a problem dissolving a team that isn't meeting their goals (I'm assuming they'd dissolve the t…

[deleted]

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#108

Post by scarface74 »

totaldude87 wrote: post #53
gauravphoenix wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was Steve Jobs https://www.crowdspring.com/blog/if-you-dont-cannibalize-you...

and that is what they did iPhones cannibalized iPods iPads put a dent on Macs

iPhones cannibalizing iPods is true in theory but misses it in spirit. It’s not a hard argument to make to sell a product that is more profitable and a larger addressable market.

The Mac just had its best quarter - ever - before the release of the M1 Macs.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#110

Post by forty »

cdcarter wrote: post #84
shitlord wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was never a manager so I don't know the official policies around dev lists and PIPs. Generally, new hires are given a few months to ramp up and become contributing team members. People are usually placed on the dev list if they don't meet expectations, and placed on a PIP if their performance does not improve. I'm guessing it reflects poorly on managers if they devlist someone shortly after hiring them. During my t…

What is the "dev list"

Seems to be an Amazon thing https://www.teamblind.com/post/What-is-Dev-list-at-Amazon-xp...

It doesn't say what "dev" stands for though.

Post reply on HN