|
|
|
|
|
|
by mxuribe
611 days ago
|
|
|
I certainly can't dispute the other points...but to me the AWS Savings plan always felt like vendor lock-in...and sort of like a virtual "on prem", in that i have to commit to something for X amount of time (like old school provisioning hardware and have it live for X time), and then i lose the flexibility of what i thought *the cloud* in general was supposed provide: that is, freedom to scale up, down or *out*, etc. I won't fault AWS and others for making their money; this is capitalism after all regardless of the vendor. I guess maybe the cloud sort of lost its shine, and it doesn't feel as liberating as maybe it once did, and both cost and complexity are overblown, maybe? |
|
|
"In the beginning" the clouds promised to use their scale to soak up your unpredictable demand. You as the customer didn't have to think about capacity, or planning ahead, budgets, opex, etc... Just swipe your credit card and go from zero to any number you please and back again at any time of your choosing. Because there are so many other customers using the cloud with you, the unpredictable nature of your individual usage is averaged out and the cloud vendor gets a (slightly) noisy but manageable usage level of their resources. They have to work a little harder to predict future capacity needs, but you pay a premium for this.
"A little later" the MBAs realise that they can squeeze 5% more profit out of their customers with lock-in contracts that make everything "nice and predictable" instead of the stochastic noise they had to "deal with" before. Getting rid of that makes things a lot harder for you as the customer, but they don't care. They care about that 5%.
Ta-da... we're back at having to "procure", we're back at budgets that have to be planned for 3 years in advance, we're back at having to have time machines.