[rsanheim]

I wonder what kind of outage or incident or economic change will be required to cause a rejection of the big commercial clouds as the default deployment model.

The costs, performance overhead, and complexity of a modern AWS deployment are insane and so out of line with what most companies should be taking on. But hype + microservices + sunk cost, and here we are.

[babl-yc]

I don't expect the majority of tech companies to want to run their own physical data centers. I do expect them to shift to more bare-metal offerings.

If I'm a mid to large size company built on DynamoDB, I'd be questioning if it's really worth the risk given this 12+ hour outage.

I'd rather build upon open source tooling on bare metal instances and control my own destiny, than hope that Amazon doesn't break things as they scale to serve a database to host the entire internet.

For big companies, it's probably a cost savings too.

[baobabKoodaa]

> For big companies, it's probably a cost savings too.

For any sized company, moving away from big clouds back onto traditional VPS or bare-metal offerings will lead to cost savings.

[guerrilla]

So then we should expect it in the long-term regardless of outages anyway for the sake of growth slone.

[einsteinx2]

I think that prediction severely underestimates the amount of cargo culting present at basically every company when it comes to decisions like this. Using AWS is like the modern “no one ever got fired for buying IBM”.

[guerrilla]

Well, let's hope a few people just got fired for using AWS. ;)

[newZWhoDis]

Honest answer? The outage would need to last about a week.