[stephenr]

Except when they suffer huge outages because of some upstream issue and HN/twitter/etc go stupid with "omg half the internet is offline" because everyone thinks AWS is indestructible.

AWS makes even less sense at scale than it does for small companies. Once you can afford to hire competent Ops staff (and assuming you don't have developers who insist they know everything needed to run a complex system in a high traffic environment, so Ops will 'get in the way') you can get much better results with co-lo or even rented full-hardware, and largely the same Open Source software AWS is built on, but without the confusing naming and vendor lock-in.

[athrun]

"Once you can afford to hire competent Ops staff"

Here, that's the catch. Most companies simply can't. Competing against Amazon, Microsoft and Google for talent doesn't sound like a smart strategy.

[stephenr]

Plenty of medium sized companies would work out better off overall, with a skilled Ops person to setup cost effective services

> Competing against Amazon, Microsoft and Google for talent doesn't sound like a smart strategy.

You don't have to compete. They are trying to make a profit. You just need to be better off, long term. That could be a mixture of lower service fees, more flexibility, improved productivity, less vendor lock in, etc.

Relying on any single company's services, particularly for key/essential systems your business relies on, doesn't sound like a smart strategy.

[athrun]

I don't see how a single "skilled ops person" can deliver "lower service fees, more flexibility, improved productivity". On the other hand, Cloud Computing will, by definition, let you turn on and off services based on business demands. It doesn't get much more flexible and cost effective than that.

"You just need to be better off, long term." - This is a good one. Do you really think your homegrown Docker environment, Hadoop cluster and/or state-of-the-art Cassandra ring maintained by your one and only skilled Unicorn is a better long term plan than 100% managed alternatives? Let's see how well (and how secure) your in-house stuff work 2-3 years down the road and how it will then compare with the always "up-to-date" alternative.

The "vendor lock-in" part is your only valid argument, in my opinion. Costs/benefits will have be weighted properly. How much do you value business agility and pace of innovation vs. increased vendor dependency?

The proper answer will be different for all businesses, but I would argue that as long as a specific IT component/technology is not part of your core business, you might be better off buying it off-the-shelves instead of building it and maintaining it yourself.

[stephenr]

Set it up well, and train dev staff to understand what monitoring notifications mean. I mean, you are monitoring your services hosted on AWS right?