A) Promising scale (and delivering to a certain extent)
B) being significantly more convenient than contemporary solutions
C) becoming trendy
D) hoodwinking CxO’s into the belief that not owning your data is better for you, actually. (CapEx vs OpEx)
E) unfathomable amounts of DevRel.
Nobody has ever claimed AWS was cost effective, they have said that “it’s worth the cost” though.
> it’s worth the cost
Sounds about the same.
The issue tends to be that people do not actually stay on top of their spend- they claim to need less headcount but then spend more than a few salaries worth on their cloud spend.
They claim they do not need headcount but then spend the same headcount in infra people anyway, or finops people in the best case.
people have lost touch with how much compute actually costs, because its little by little and claims to scale to zero or you only pay what you want. - yet every installation I’ve ever seen has had a base cost higher than the largest colo installation cost we would have needed times 2.
Its not cost effective, because its on average 11x more expensive than a fully managed colocation installation. - your packets dont care that you spent 11x more on half the performance.
AWS is a boutique retail reseller for compute. It's okay for very tiny projects, or for vanity purposes.
