[sonnyblarney]

I don't see how arbitrary AWS instances are in any way going to go 'obsolete'. They have been around for a decade and are becoming more and more normative.

Second, the underlying financial principle is that with visibility comes lower volatility comes lower cost - that's some very basic financial logic that's at play here.

Yes, of course the contract implies a degree of vendor lock-in, but this is inherent in the nature underlying operational costs.

"RIs are a lock in." - of course. And if you don't want to be locked in, then you're going to have to pay a lot more: AWS, GCC it doesn't matter, it's the same financial reality everywhere.

[taormina]

No, the GP is referring to things like c3 vs c5 families. When you're locked into the 3 year old hardware, you have to pay the cost of upgrading eventually.

[sonnyblarney]

First - that 'lock in' is very evident by the nature of the contract.

Second - because newer things are available, it does not mean that others become 'obsolete' in three years by any means.

The vast majority of business do not need to have access to the latest, specific version of what are essentially commodity bits of hardware and software.

It's not really a risk for most businesses, and if it is, then obviously they can pay a higher price for the volatility inherent in switching at any time if they so chose.

[bscanlan]

Note that AWS offer convertible reservations, and this is what Stripe say they use in the article.