Live data from Hacker News

A Swedish startup’s bid to build a green rival to AWS

sifted.eu

171–180 of 228 posts

Re: A Swedish startup’s bid to build a green rival to AWS

#171
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither are even remotely close to competing with AWS, GCP or Azure in terms of features though, they are more server providers than anything else. And OVH is a dumpster fire.

> Neither are even remotely close to competing with AWS, GCP or Azure in terms of features though And this Swedish startup is?

For that claim I'd base myself on two things: scale (even if forecasted but especially invested into), and compatibility with the main services

(though some stuff in AWS is painful like IAM, etc so maybe it can be done better)

Re: A Swedish startup’s bid to build a green rival to AWS

#172
post #18

Corporate fluff aside, AWS is on track to run on 100% renewables by 2025[1] so the selling is mostly "European cloud" since the green part will be mostly expected by the time they actually ramp up. Competition is always good though. > Studies by 451 Research have shown that AWS’ infrastructure is 3.6 times more energy efficient than the median of U.S. enterprise data centers surveyed and up to five times more energy…

What does running 100% on renewable mean? Do they have a separate electricity grid with dedicated production? Or does it just mean they just use the same mixed electricity as everyone else and pay a small premium to have their electricity colored green, but then whoever was using that electrity before is now using non green one and everything is the same as before as far as CO2 emissions are concerned?

Re: A Swedish startup’s bid to build a green rival to AWS

#174
post #172
post #18

Corporate fluff aside, AWS is on track to run on 100% renewables by 2025[1] so the selling is mostly "European cloud" since the green part will be mostly expected by the time they actually ramp up. Competition is always good though. > Studies by 451 Research have shown that AWS’ infrastructure is 3.6 times more energy efficient than the median of U.S. enterprise data centers surveyed and up to five times more energy…

What does running 100% on renewable mean? Do they have a separate electricity grid with dedicated production? Or does it just mean they just use the same mixed electricity as everyone else and pay a small premium to have their electricity colored green, but then whoever was using that electrity before is now using non green one and everything is the same as before as far as CO2 emissions are concerned?

Yup, the latter is what is usually meant.

The price of "green" tariffs in the UK skyrocketed identically to traditional tariffs, when energy prices doubled or tripled in the last few years.

Re: A Swedish startup’s bid to build a green rival to AWS

#175
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which in itself is a massive selling feature. Deploying a simple app on AWS is about as straight forward as deploying Active Directory in the early 2000s. It is so bad Amazon even launched the Lightsail product line to address the problem. AWS now is basically "you don't know how to run a database, or a KV store, or a network, etc. so here it all is as an API with a markup." Some companies still have talent that know…

It's not at all a selling point. You can do the same on AWS, get an EC2 and install everything there, that's it. The thing is that when you will need to leverage the other services of AWS, they will be there, while you will need to migrate if you're on one of those server providers.

[deleted]

Re: A Swedish startup’s bid to build a green rival to AWS

#176
post #108

> The biggest European provider, Deutsche Telekom OVHcloud, holds 1-2% of the market. Wait what? It's OVHcloud, not "Deutsche Telekom OVHcloud". There is no mention of any relationship between the two companies beside a common project named "Gaia-X" which is still in a very very early stage of planning. This doesn't inspire confidence in the journalist.

Ovhcloud is French. Telekom is a German company and they have open telekom cloud. We actually use this on a project (and I don't recommend that to friends).

Gaia-X is a european initiative and consortium to build some standardized cloud ecosystem. The goals are a bit hand wavy and since Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are actually part of the consortium, it's not really clear what the goals are at this point. I haven't heard much about this since it was announced a few years ago.

I've used AWS, Gcloud, Hetzner, Telekom Cloud, and a few other things. My view on this space is that it needs disruption. Amazon was disruptive when they launched in 2006. It was great and it enabled a lot of companies to stop worrying about maintaining infrastructure. That's 15 years ago. It's a commodity product at this point.

The problems I see:

- Companies overcharge for their services. AWS especially is very expensive to use. To the point that the monthly cost of some of their more expensive things about pays for the hardware they give you. Of course it delivers a lot of value. But it creates an opportunity for others to offer cheaper services.

- Most providers try to lock you into their platform with a combination of complexity and convenience. Once you are on a platform, switching it out for another becomes really expensive. Things like openstack exist of course but are a combination of complex and not that comprehensive.

- The services offered by these companies are very hard to use for what they do. You end up micro managing lots of bits and pieces and you need expensive devops people to do that for you. There are better ways to deploy software to server these days that feature higher levels of automation and convenience.

To disrupt the big providers, you'd need to be as good but an order of magnitude cheaper. Instead of focusing the commodity things that everybody has (buckets, vms, load balancers, etc.), the real value is in the more advanced stuff they offer. Things like Fargate or Google cloud run. Basically Kubernetes without all the moving parts to worry about. Don't offer database servers but scalable elastic data bases.

In short, that's where the money is and the reason Amazon is so ridiculously wealthy. They overcharge for this stuff and they don't get any real competition so they get away with it. If you think about it, a lot of this stuff is very resource efficient. So it should be cheaper than getting a lot of hardware that you then under utilize. Instead, it's more expensive. AWS pockets the difference.

That's what needs disrupting but it will be a race to the bottom once this starts happening. I think that's overdue though. So this Swedish company might be onto something.

Re: A Swedish startup’s bid to build a green rival to AWS

#177
post #7

I think there’s an opportunity for an IkeaCloud or AldiCloud that is just barebones and cheap but still is a proper cloud. Given that Microsoft and google are struggling to match aws it seems we’re still decades away from someone truly being able to deliver the same features, scale, and reliability.

I've been using scaleway which fits that description imo

Re: A Swedish startup’s bid to build a green rival to AWS

#178
post #18

Corporate fluff aside, AWS is on track to run on 100% renewables by 2025[1] so the selling is mostly "European cloud" since the green part will be mostly expected by the time they actually ramp up. Competition is always good though. > Studies by 451 Research have shown that AWS’ infrastructure is 3.6 times more energy efficient than the median of U.S. enterprise data centers surveyed and up to five times more energy…

We sorely need some disruption. I rent cloud VPSes at Hetzner that cost me $27/month for 10000 Geekbench. The most efficient in house option are small nettop computers with 13700H processors that get you 13000 geekbench for $500, 50 watts of power and less than 1 liter of real estate. That same computing power would cost me north of $1000/month at AWS or Azure, and about $300 at smaller cloud providers. Which means big cloud companies got too comfortable and overcharge massively.
Post reply on HN