[ibnbutlAn]

I wonder if the UK situation is worse/better than the rest of Europe here. At least there are Hertzner and OVH, but not sure if they are remotely comparable to AWS et al.

[porker]

I don't know much about the situation in Europe, but in the UK once you move beyond the international cloud players most of our hosting is now owned by big conglomerates. The smaller companies have been bought up by iONOS, team.blue, HostEurope and others I can't recall.

They're not comparable to AWS but it has reduced choice and IMO customer support, as each individual company is cost-optimised into a brand and the actual hosting moved to the parent company's infrastructure.

[gnufx]

At least, post-Bytemark, there's still Mythic Beasts.

[dustedcodes]

Hetzner is at best comparable to the very first version of AWS, but since then the "traditional" cloud has moved on. Hetzner is basically old school (I guess we can call this model old school now?) IaaS, whereas AWS, Azure and GCP are mostly PaaS now. At Hetzner you think about what infrastructure you need, at traditional cloud providers people don't think about infrastructure that much anymore and rather think about what ready made products they need.

[miohtama]

In AWS, you are not paying for CPU, you are paying for everything else (CPU probably sold on loss)

- Slighty modified open source infrastructure applications (PostgreSQL, etc.)

- Access management

- Brand

- Fancy deployment scripting (needed when > 15 VMs)

- egress cost (as mentioned in the article)

If you do not any of the above, you can roll out your own Redis and PSQL, or use a third party provider, Hetzner is often much better deal.

[hkt]

They're not really comparable with AWS as a whole. They certainly compare with EC2, but as far as I know neither OVH nor Hetzner have anything comparable to say, IAM. It is the pre-cloud roll-your-own-in-a-dc thing and it isn't the same proposition if you're a business.