Can you name a more reliable alternative? With citations?
Because every major cloud provider has outages. On prem clouds also have outages. Everyone does.
Comment on Huge internet outage live blog: Amazon, Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max and more experiencing issues
poopkins@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Why do these companies still sign with AWS? Didn’t they learn from the last two major outages in us-east? To say nothing of the deceptive business practices to obfuscate service utilization to overcharge businesses?
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Can you name a more reliable alternative?
Stop using hyperscalers. Then when an outage does occur, it doesn’t take down half the internet, and instead only affects a much smaller subset of services.
jj4211@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Problem is that as a provider, if you are sure you are confident you’ll get hit by an outage at some point anyway, it’s actually better for you if a bunch of other big names are brought down at the same time.
Instead of “that one service sucked”, the story is “aws sucked”. If it happens too much people will more widely say “ok they suck for using aws”, but for now the transparency gets them treated more like being affected by an unavoidable external condition.
I’m grateful a lot of sites I like didn’t use aws, but I’m not exactly a common demographic and even I won’t know if she is the services even move or not until another such outage.
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Okay, you know those have outages too right?
Like sure, it wouldn’t be all together like this, but that’s also not a reasonable ask for a lot of big cloud customers without huge investments for not actually anything extra.
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
One potential advantage of being up while a whole lot of other companies are down is that some customers may end up switching to you during an outage involving the majority of your competitors.
Yes, you’d experience outages on the new service, but where you potentially lose X% of your business (I have no idea what that kind of number looks like - 0.1%? Higher? Lower?), in the event of AWS outage hitting all your competitors, they each lose 0.1% (or whatever) who disproportionately go to you because you were up while they, and other alternatives, were all down.
This potentially advantages the first companies to jump off AWS for a comparable alternative, which is fair sight better than if the advantages only showed up once some minimum of companies left AWS since no one would be incentived to be first.
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Did you read my entire comment? I know it’s more than one sentence, but your entire comment would be irrelevant if you read the whole thing.
sobchak@programming.dev 3 days ago
For these large businesses, I imagine they get favorable deals, and all the executives probably know each other and scratch each-other’s backs. For smaller businesses, AWS can decrease time-to-market, it’s easy to find people who are already familiar with it, and is seen as less risky than going with some smaller provider. Though, I hate the “cloud” with a passion, and whenever I’m given the choice, I avoid it. It’s quite a bit cheaper in the long run to avoid cloud providers too. On one long project I worked on, we hadn’t had downtime on any of our VPSs longer than a couple minutes over the course of 8 years.
echodot@feddit.uk 4 days ago
AWS has outages. So the answer to your question is obvious, AWS is not an advantage over any other solution.
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
No system is perfect.
Leg@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Yes, and? Things can be better.
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
Sure, but perfect?
Leg@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
No one’s asking for perfect. But a better system would account for outages, which we’ve seen plenty of so far. How’s that saying go? Don’t let perfect be the enemy of progress? It’s out of reach for a reason.
oppy1984@lemdro.id 4 days ago
My guess, the CFO showed that using AWS saves the company a few cents to a fraction of a cent per what ever unit they measure by. Those few cents to a fraction of a cent add up when multiplied by the millions or hundreds of millions of units and that savings makes the CEO look like they are more profitable and can give shareholders more profit.
When everything is about the quarterly results and the need to always show growth so the board and shareholders don’t fire you, you’ll cut corners and take the risk, as long as it has the potential to make you look good.
Nikls94@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Bro casually and respectfully explaining enshittification over here.
oppy1984@lemdro.id 3 days ago
I’m dead tired and can’t think of a way to say this without sounding arrogant, seriously my brain is fried right now, so I’ll just say I take that as a compliment and thank you.
ManOMorphos@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Airlines were one of the first to enshittify this way in the modern age. I think a lot of the current executives took this story to heart IMO.