e.g. AWS -> Elasticsearch.
AWS customers like that there's one bill and one account. Who wants to deal with multiple vendors if they don't have to? It isn't a level playing field when Amazon offers a service.
Amazon could have chosen a cooperative, long-term, strategy and shared some revenue with the authors for some quid-pro-quo, and the world and Amazon, would be better for it. Instead, Amazon chose to cook the goose that lays the golden eggs, now they have to figure it out themselves, and whole ecosystems of services they could have hosted are running away from them.
- The ability to invent new infrastructure to suit a need. For example, multi legged ENIs that provide the EKS control plane are simply not available to others,
- The ability to integrate with IAM natively,
- The ability to build common network architectures without outrageous costs (traffic over peering links being a good example since that is what basically all vendors have to do).
I honestly can't fathom this worldview or how so many people here seem to be so sure it is the one that makes sense.
If you win this battle for mindshare, people will just stop making open source services like these. Every service will just be fully closed source SaaS. Amazon can't just re-sell that no matter what, and people just crap on you if you make it open source (edit: re-reading this, should have said "source available" here), so why would anyone bother?
Increasingly people who make open source software services are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and if that is how it's gonna be, people are going to just stop bothering with it.
Lucene is the core piece but %-wise the minority of the ES product.
There's no Lucene "competitor" to Elasticsearch.
Apache Solr, which existed long before Elasticsearch was conceived.
