[SteveNuts]

Sure, but whose (compatible) API is GCS using again? Also keep in mind that S3 is creeping up on 20 years old, so backing a change in like that is incredible.

[benoau]

Not just 20 years old - an almost flawless 20 years at massive scale.

[SteveNuts]

It's funny that things that are pinnacles of human engineering exist like this where the general public has no idea it even exists, though they (most likely) use it every single day.

[ninetyninenine]

I find red dead redemption 2 more impressive. I don’t know why. It sounds stupid but S3 on the surface has the simplest api and it’s just not impressive to me when compared to something like that.

I’m curious which one is actually more impressive in general.

[SteveNuts]

Simple to use from an external interface yes, the backend is wildly impressive.

Some previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36900147

[UltraSane]

AWS has said that the largest S3 buckets are spread over 1 million hard drives. That is quite impressive.

[ninetyninenine]

Red dead redemption 2 is likely on over 74 million hard drives.

[simonw]

I think you misunderstood. They're not saying S3 uses a million hard drives, they're saying that there exist some large single buckets that use a million hard drives just for that one bucket/customer!

[SteveNuts]

There's likely over a trillion active SQLite databases in use right now.

[koito17]

> S3 on the surface has the simplest api and it’s just not impressive [...]

Reminded of the following comment from not too long ago.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43363055

[sriram_malhar]

That's the strangest comparison I have seen. What axis are you really comparing here? Better graphics? Sound?

[ninetyninenine]

Complexity and sheer intelligence and capability required to build either.

[sriram_malhar]

And what is the basis for your claim? You are not impressed by AWS's complexity and intelligence and capability to build and manage 1-2 zettabytes of storage near flawlessly?