21–30 of 141 posts
Judging by the size of the AWS bill that companies pay without a peep, I don't think anyone here is incredibly surprised.
With reserved instances, prepayment, and other tricks you can about halve AWS costs at scale.
Disclaimer: DevOps for AWS and bare metal infrastructure.
"Since its inception, Amazon has refined and expanded AWS while competitors including Microsoft and Google have tried to replicate its success with similar projects. Those companies have only recently started to deliver basic services on par with Amazon’s." Is this really true? I know that AWS offers many more services than competitors currently, but for the services for which there is a competing product, is the AWS…
Yes, Amazon offers a bigger variety of products, but the newer ones just scream vendor lock-in without much-added benefit. Why would I use Opsworks if Chef or Ansible work just as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is the AWS offering really that much better? Depends on your needs, tbh, traditional hosting is a better fit for mine. I can automate buying and provisioning bare metal servers already. I don't need AWS for that.
Thats not the question. Yes, AWS is way ahead of the other cloud providers in every way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not parent but I'd guess they are talking about OpenStack but if they are they are wrong. Running a data center is no easy or cheap task. Sure you might have SOME of the logistics cut out for you using OpenStack but the barriers to entry are still VERY high.
The datacenters is also just part of it. All that software is itself part of the deal. That said, people could build competing services to some AWS products right on top of AWS' own services...
FWIW, I've been told that their investment per data center is in the billion dollar range. That capital requirement is definitely a barrier to entry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats not the question. Yes, AWS is way ahead of the other cloud providers in every way.
Care to elaborate? It seems like you know the answer to my question =] For example, how is EC2 much better than GCE, if it is. (I realize you didn't imply that it was; this comparison just seems the most interesting to me)
AWS have ~40 instances types and and ~40 services they offer, so this is way ahead of other cloud providers, so it is a much richer ecosystem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With reserved instances, prepayment, and other tricks you can about halve AWS costs at scale.
But still get worse performance than bare metal (noisy neighbors, inconsistent EBS performance, intra-instance network latency). Disclaimer: DevOps for AWS and bare metal infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With reserved instances, prepayment, and other tricks you can about halve AWS costs at scale.
But still get worse performance than bare metal (noisy neighbors, inconsistent EBS performance, intra-instance network latency). Disclaimer: DevOps for AWS and bare metal infrastructure.
I don't think the growth will accelerate as the article claims as the barrier to entry is becoming less and less each day. It should be interesting to see how it plays out.
At the moment the only realistic challengers to AWS are Microsoft and Google.
"Since its inception, Amazon has refined and expanded AWS while competitors including Microsoft and Google have tried to replicate its success with similar projects. Those companies have only recently started to deliver basic services on par with Amazon’s." Is this really true? I know that AWS offers many more services than competitors currently, but for the services for which there is a competing product, is the AWS…
They could have summed up the whole thing as First-mover advantage. Amazon created this new market and when MS, Google etc saw a real opportunity in it, they wanted a piece of it and thus moved in by replicating the best features. Meanwhile for Amazon it was all about maintaining its majority share refining and expanding.