[zwischenzug]

Author here. This is absolutely not true. I worked for an AWS customer that wanted to use it and had a crystal clear strategy for why. The idea that AWS didn't have a business case for EKS is _laughable_. Also laughable is the idea that K8s didn't have enough traction to be worth the investment.

EKS was a bolt from the blue - we'd been quietly told by senior staff that ECS would be moved to a K8s API (which we may have taken). My feeling was that business trumped the engineering view that ECS was enough, but that's nothing more than my speculation.

[scarface74]

Because you “worked for an AWS customer” that wanted it is not a valid reason for why AWS should invest in the service.

[whoisjuan]

Why would you think that a particular AWS customer anecdote (at your 1 to 1 scale) asking for K8s is validation for building a managed K8s service at the enormous AWS scale?

I think you didn't understand my argument. I'm not saying people didn't have use cases. They likely did. But nothing at an enterprise level. Nothing at the moment could hint someone paying multi-million dollar contracts contigent to having a K8s managed service.

A single customer asking for K8s doesn't prove anything in the larger picture. A larger picture where you have to invest millions of dollars if you move into that particular space.

Also, please pardon my delicacy here, but what's the need for using the word "laughable"? I don't understand what's laughable about my position. I really don't get why people think that the best way to prove their point is to undermine a challenging opinion with pejorative adjectives.