|
|
|
|
|
|
by zalebz
1590 days ago
|
|
|
Most companies that went in early on the cloud implemented S3. By providing an S3 compatible API, a storage provider can make it extremely easy for companies to switch. You don't even need to support the full API for this purpose as a very common use case is just uploading files for backups. No one is arguing for S3 to become the one new standard, it is more like supporting the most common import/export file type in Photoshop/Blender. If you have existing running processes in place and all you need to update is connection string and auth to save a ton of money then you are much more likely to do so. |
|
|
I understand the rationale, but Photoshop/Blender files are very common in their respective space. In comparison, the proportion of people using S3 protocol vs NFS/FTP/SFTP is insignificant (i don't have stats).
> If you have existing running processes in place and all you need to update is connection string and auth to save a ton of money then you are much more likely to do so.
Good point! But do companies using cloud storage really want to save on costs? If they did, there were already much cheaper storage solutions long before Amazon S3 existed so why go with S3 in the first place? Amazon's pricing is confusing for storage costs, but for sure 0.09$/GB egress is a much higher cost than most providers (90$/TB ?! that's very much the price of an entire 1TB hard drive!).
Amazon "cloud" is just vendor lock-in and i'm personally a little uneasy to encourage anyone to support their tooling because who's gonna benefit from that apart from Amazon? Certainly not the hundreds of maintainers who'll have to spend countless hours to implement/maintain these new protocols who from my understanding don't bring any new useful feature.