Off Topic, Previously I was always put off by Amazon's design. You can click on anything Amazon related, AWS included and see some fugly UI and layout. And i got to check AWS again and i am pleasantly surprised things have improved dramatically!
Ugh, I don't know if it's just me, but browsing for anything on Amazon.com really irks me. First, the page loads, then a bunch of other stuff loads in the background. The problem is that you try scrolling after the page loads, but the web site is so demanding on the browser that it frequently breaks scrolling. Plus, the tab title flickers the entire time this is going on. It's clearly a symptom of a large number of p…
Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
91–100 of 150 posts
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#9236% of Amazon's operating profit is now from AWS. That's crazy!
Not really. Amazon as a whole is dial-a-yield depending on the rate of profit reinvested to grow existing/new capabilities. If Bezos wanted, he could halt expansion and return more profit in the short-term, but that would delay long-term revenue (and hence profit) generation plans (however long he's able to find other business expansion directions which avoid the perils of overexpansion and also avoid plateauing for…
I've investigated colocs near some AWS locations and found AWS to be around 20% cheaper than the cheapest viable option. With AWS's occasional price drops on top of that and general flexibility it's not a difficult choice.
One thing I found was that most providers were trying to sell vertical reliability (e.g. hardware RAID1), with a matching price. Our redundancy is horizontal at the application level (e.g. Zookeeper, Cassandra) so this has no value for us.
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Amazon as a whole is dial-a-yield depending on the rate of profit reinvested to grow existing/new capabilities. If Bezos wanted, he could halt expansion and return more profit in the short-term, but that would delay long-term revenue (and hence profit) generation plans (however long he's able to find other business expansion directions which avoid the perils of overexpansion and also avoid plateauing for…
> it's not a panacea because it tends to get very expensive, very quickly. I've investigated colocs near some AWS locations and found AWS to be around 20% cheaper than the cheapest viable option. With AWS's occasional price drops on top of that and general flexibility it's not a difficult choice. One thing I found was that most providers were trying to sell vertical reliability (e.g. hardware RAID1), with a matching…
Someone also has to know how to negotiate with DC's (because power circuits are often the biggest cost factor) and how to separately get good deals on fiber (which is usually far cheaper than the DC's charges because most customers don't know better). DC's often nickel and dime for simple tasks if you don't do it yourself (or have hands that can do it for you). (RackSpace used to charge something $75 every time a box need to be reimaged. DC's will often take forever and charge several arms and legs to rack & stack & cable in your cage, but you will still be at their mercy for freight & delivery and pulling outside fiber, electrical circuits, cooling & rack leveling.)
Overall though, it's still cheaper for web-ops shops to do bare metal in (Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc. in their own DC's and other large/medium shops with predictable baseline loads in someone else's DC's) otherwise everyone would be using AWS. And that's clearly not the case for anyone who's ever been in a real enterprise shop.
Look at Wikia or most any other enterprise shop for baseline loads: mostly bare metal, because it's far cheaper for people whom know what they're doing. Also, BackBlaze... pretty much no way to undercut with them apart from buying an HDD manufacturer and going multi-datacenter-scale.
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walmart is cheaper. Significantly cheaper. You don't have to pay $100-$300 per year plus Amazon's typical 10-20% price premium* in exchange for "free" 2-day shipping. If you live in the right place you can pick up the goods same-day from Walmart, maybe even on your commute, so for some people it's more convenient too. * The usual caveat about everything varying with geography applies here too, I'm sure.
Is "in-store pickup" really that popular? When I need something in a few days (or later), I'll order it from Amazon when I think about it. If I need something "now" or today, I'll just drive to the store and go get it. I, personally, don't really see the point of the "in-store pickup" -- why order it online if I have to go there to get it anyways?
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's not a panacea because it tends to get very expensive, very quickly. I've investigated colocs near some AWS locations and found AWS to be around 20% cheaper than the cheapest viable option. With AWS's occasional price drops on top of that and general flexibility it's not a difficult choice. One thing I found was that most providers were trying to sell vertical reliability (e.g. hardware RAID1), with a matching…
Is that rented gear in someone else's racks or your own gear in racks you rent? Beyond a few boxes, the TCO of buying your own gear is far, far cheaper (look at the prices of Supermicro boxes, not luxury, overpriced enterprise boxes that aren't use-case appropriate). Someone also has to know how to negotiate with DC's (because power circuits are often the biggest cost factor) and how to separately get good deals on f…
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#96I'm trying to understand why large companies use AWS for their primary infrastructure. Both AWS and Azure are obscenely expensive when compared to buying servers and colocating them somewhere. The cloud model works well for bootstrapped startups, but anyone with the resources to buy and manage their own servers is crazy if they use AWS or Azure as their primary server platform.
I feel like this is a myth that just won't go away. If you run your 24/7 steady state load using on-demand hourly charged instances, and don't factor in the cost of managing your own hardware and data centres then yes, EC2 is hideously expensive. If you plan your spend (much like you would in buying your own hardware and DC space) it really isn't - reserved instances considerably reduce prices, and come with bulk dis…
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is. "If you’re used to designing and deploying applications in your own data centers, you need to be prepared to unlearn a lot of what you know." Which is it? Did it save them money because they didn't have to "build their own redundancy and failover" or did they have to build a bunch of custom tools like Chaos Monkey because "I knew to expect higher rates of individual instance failure in AWS, but I hadn’t t…
"That cost has to be taken into account and added to the fact that across many AWS offerings, you're looking at as much as a 10x price / performance penalty versus dedicated or collocation." This. The pricing is especially egrerious in bandwidth charges which for AWS are almost pure profit. Amazon is only cheap if you don't use it.
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that rented gear in someone else's racks or your own gear in racks you rent? Beyond a few boxes, the TCO of buying your own gear is far, far cheaper (look at the prices of Supermicro boxes, not luxury, overpriced enterprise boxes that aren't use-case appropriate). Someone also has to know how to negotiate with DC's (because power circuits are often the biggest cost factor) and how to separately get good deals on f…
Rented gear in someone else's racks, and it's only that cheap due to Supermicro. I did calculate what the providers premium was, and it didn't seem too unreasonable given the services such as remote hands and taking care of replacements that were being provided.
(For smaller stuff/side projects: In the UK, ByteMark.co.uk is awesome, flexible (colo/rent) and cheap. In the US, Pair.com is great. Linode is also decent.)
(For bigger stuff, there are datacenters in the middle of nowhere where power is cheap. That's the often limiting factor for green-field projects... cost of renting circuits from DC's, not the rack real-estate.)
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Former Amazon person here. This is totally wrong. Amazon retail has been running on AWS for years.
Re: Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year
#100I'm trying to understand why large companies use AWS for their primary infrastructure. Both AWS and Azure are obscenely expensive when compared to buying servers and colocating them somewhere. The cloud model works well for bootstrapped startups, but anyone with the resources to buy and manage their own servers is crazy if they use AWS or Azure as their primary server platform.