[s_dev]

No -- if they needed to they already would have migrated to a multi-region. If they don't need it -- they won't have. The reason is simple -- it's expensive as you say. I'm not a fanboi or evangelist of AWS either -- I do have pet theories they named their products with shit names in order to make more money by making AWS skills less transferable to Google Cloud etc. S3 should be Amazon FTP, RDS should be Amazon SQL etc.

[apetresc]

> S3 should be Amazon FTP

I... don't think you know what S3 is. Or maybe what FTP is.

(Also S3, EC2, RDS, etc. were named long before GCP had competing services)

[ketzo]

I mean, lots of people put off doing something expensive but safer just because it’s expensive, but rethink after the consequences show.

[llbeansandrice]

S3 is nothing like FTP? RDS stands for Relational Database Service. You have a valid point but picked the worst examples.

[hagbarddenstore]

S3 is Simple Storage Service RDS is Relational Data Service EC2 is Elastic Compute Cloud

All of these make sense.

If you're gonna complain about names, at least pick the really sucky ones, like Athena, Snowball, etc.

[Cederfjard]

You’re saying businesses always make the right decisions and never put them off?

[jedberg]

Not at all the case. It was a regional outage that got Netflix to more than double our AWS spend going multi-region, so that outage netted them millions of extra dollars per year just from Netflix.

[dilyevsky]

You’re underestimating the ability of eng leadership to not take these issues seriously. Only when there’s sufficient pressure from the very top or even the customers it takes a priority.