[twawaaay]

> I wish I chose AWS.

Well... AWS has better support IMO (like actual people you can talk to).

But I still chose to not tie myself to any of these platforms for anything critical. It requires additional upfront effort, but I can migrate all my applications off of AWS in a moment.

There is no easy way around Google and Apple when it comes to your app staying available, but I am trying to minimise any chances I could be flagged for anything (basically not linking those accounts to any other services).

[sebazzz]

> But I still chose to not tie myself to any of these platforms for anything critical. It requires additional upfront effort, but I can migrate all my applications off of AWS in a moment.

Then you are probably not doing "cloud native" development using their proprietary SDKs, so probably just running some EC2 (virtual machine) instance and RDS (database) instance. That is about the most expensive way you can use the big-tech clouds, at that point you might as well move to the smaller hosting providers like Linode.

[twawaaay]

No, that's not what I do.

But I can structure my application so that the innards are not tied to AWS APIs.

For example, SNS is just a small messaging module that I can easily replace for something else by reimplementing literally half a dozen functions.

Guys, these problems have been present in software development for the past half century. They have solutions if you care to find them.

[nagyf]

That is not what I would call a "moment". If you have to rewrite your application code to migrate to a different platform, that's not going to be a moment.

Even if you abstract away most of the platform specific stuff in your code, that's going to take days/weeks of implementation and testing before you can go live. That won't help you when a provider suddenly bans your account in the middle of the night, and you need it running asap.

[konha]

> If you have to rewrite your application code to migrate to a different platform, that's not going to be a moment.

Having a couple of days of downtime might be an acceptable tradeoff for an event with a very low chance of happening. Risk management basically. (If your business doesn’t survive that downtime it might be a completely different story of course.)

[twawaaay]

Yeah, people frequently overestimate how reliable their app needs to be.

My CEO is constantly beating it into my head: "I will gladly accept a day or even more of downtime from time to time if it lets me get what I want 10% faster".

It does not mean shoddy engineering. It just means consciously deciding not to do some work. Spending couple more days to get the app automatically fail over to another without downtime? Engineer it to run as a distributed system when it could happily run on a single server? Let's just not do it, let's make it simpler and easier to make and accept that if AWS has a failure it may take a moment to spin another instance somewhere else.

[npteljes]

How well do smaller / more traditional providers support auto scaling and various other "elastic" features of AWS? I only have experience with renting a "traditional" VPS, and some of the more modern AWS offerings.

[joshxyz]

im actually surprised aws gives you live chat support even at their free tier, pretty much why i also love namecheap.

[x86x87]

being able to migrate != support

GCP is not going to be a thing in a few years. Why would anyone pick GCP at this point with all the horror stories coming out of there? Yes, support is hard, yes it's expensive, yes it takes time. But at the end of the day this is how you make or break the trust of your customers.