51–60 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least free markets -allow- competition. In socialism/communism all sectors become state monopolies, with no market incentive to provide a decent service, nor to compensate workers fairly.
There is no state in communism.
Unless you are talking about the theoretical "pure communism" which is fiction/fancy and we may as well be talking about utopia.
Let's think potential remedies. Suggest possible ideas in this thread!
Eg. an AWS VM reading data from DynamoDB should cost the same per gigabyte than an AWS VM reading data from Google Bigtable.
Either they need to start accounting for bandwidth between services, or stop charging for bandwidth to competitors.
Let's think potential remedies. Suggest possible ideas in this thread!
I'd like to see them require cloud providers price network ingress and egress to a competitor the same as network ingress/egress to another service of the same provider. Eg. an AWS VM reading data from DynamoDB should cost the same per gigabyte than an AWS VM reading data from Google Bigtable. Either they need to start accounting for bandwidth between services, or stop charging for bandwidth to competitors.
Yet bandwidth to a competitor 200 miles away is far more constrained. As well as costing more, it simply isn't practical to have a fleet of 10,000 VM's all booting up using remote disks 200 miles away in a competitors datacenter which only has two 100Gbps direct network links shared between all customers.
> Technical restrictions on interoperability. These are imposed by the leading firms that prevent some of their services working effectively with services from other providers. This means customers need to put additional effort into reconfiguring their data and applications to work across different clouds. I'm not sure what they mean by this, anyone care to speculate?
Sounds like a fancy way of saying vendor lock-in
Let's think potential remedies. Suggest possible ideas in this thread!
Non interoperable services would have a 25% revenue tax applied if they have more than a 10% market share and are run by a company with a revenue over $10M/yr.
I wonder if the UK situation is worse/better than the rest of Europe here. At least there are Hertzner and OVH, but not sure if they are remotely comparable to AWS et al.
Hetzner is at best comparable to the very first version of AWS, but since then the "traditional" cloud has moved on. Hetzner is basically old school (I guess we can call this model old school now?) IaaS, whereas AWS, Azure and GCP are mostly PaaS now. At Hetzner you think about what infrastructure you need, at traditional cloud providers people don't think about infrastructure that much anymore and rather think about…
- Slighty modified open source infrastructure applications (PostgreSQL, etc.)
- Access management
- Brand
- Fancy deployment scripting (needed when > 15 VMs)
- egress cost (as mentioned in the article)
If you do not any of the above, you can roll out your own Redis and PSQL, or use a third party provider, Hetzner is often much better deal.
Just another example that a free market does not always ensure healthy competition and some times intervention is needed to level the playing field.
At least free markets -allow- competition. In socialism/communism all sectors become state monopolies, with no market incentive to provide a decent service, nor to compensate workers fairly.
It makes sense with this being an American site, and most Americans think that Socialism is essentially the same thing as Communism (but then why define them as separate things?).
Community, Cooperative, Employee owned are all forms of socialism. None of them prevent competition.
> no market incentive to provide a decent service, nor to compensate workers fairly.
If you owned part of the company you worked for, you would be more likely to provide good service as that would then have repeat business and would directly financially impact you. The performance of the business is the only way you would get paid and as there are no shareholders the company would compensate rather than dividend.
Your comment makes absolutely no sense, socialism doesn't prevent free markets.
> Technical restrictions on interoperability. These are imposed by the leading firms that prevent some of their services working effectively with services from other providers. This means customers need to put additional effort into reconfiguring their data and applications to work across different clouds. I'm not sure what they mean by this, anyone care to speculate?
I'd guess that migrating from any of the local cloud DB variations (Aurora say) is unduly hard once you've migrated to it. But that's just a guess. It is certainly a PITA to migrate, I know that for sure.
That's probably not a great example of vendor lock-in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I say this as someone who only uses AWS for DR backups: hosting infra is one of the most competitive industries out there. Major cloud costs are exorbitant but that should be interpreted as proof of a great product. I shudder at paying 9c/gb egress but apparently many others do not.
> hosting infra is one of the most competitive industries out there. Here is an experiment - tell your employer you will be hosting on (insert no-name provider here), to same a literal million dollars, and see if you can get security team to sign off on it. Here is another experiment - reach out to he security team, and tell them AWS costs are too high, ask them which providers they will be ready and willing to sign…
SOCS/PCI/etc is going to take maybe $100-200k. If you can save a million dollars you should do it. Hire an expert if you have to. Serious.
I think it probably won't save you a million dollars, because I think all of the cloud vendors are priced with just enough profit to make sure of it, but if you know something I'd like to know about it.