> AWS was a hell of a lot better than anything you could come up with unless you're literally at Amazon scale
AWS is a hell of a lot better than most people here can come up with for solving AWS specific set of problems and priorities. But those problems and priorities generally do not match the problem space of the people using it exactly.
For example, AWS has a lot of complexity for dealing with services and deployment because it needs to be versatile enough to meet wildly different scenarios. In designing a solution for one company and their needs over the next few years, you wouldn't attempt to match what AWS does, because the majority of companies use only a small fraction of the available services, so that wouldn't be a good use of time and resources.
AWS is good enough for very many companies so they appeal to large chunks of the market, but let's not act like that makes them a perfect or "best" solution. They're just a very scaleable and versatile solution so it's unlikely they can't handle your problem. You'll often pay more for that scaleability and versatility though, and if you knew perfectly (or within good bounds) what to expect when designing a system, it's really not that hard to beat AWS on a cost and growth level with a well designed plan.
Edit: Whoops, s/dell/well/, but it probably works either way... ;)
I'm starting to think this person refuses to be logical, not directed at you kbenson. PlayStation Network ran fine for years in our own datacenters, we decided to move to AWS instead of dealing with acquiring and maintaining our own hardware. Trust me, Sony isn't lacking some very bright people, we just don't want to deal with on-prem anymore, so yeah we'll throw ridiculous money at them for that pleasure.
diminoten -- relax, take a breath. Your rude and condescending tone is unnecessary. We don't see eye-to-eye, but I'm not discounting your experience. I can't say I'm getting the same vibe from you.
I think the only thing you wrote here I would point out is that you seem to vastly underestimate the operational cost of running your own in-house infrastructure. You're comparing AWS costs to hardware costs, but that's not what AWS gives you, it lets you restructure how you task your entire SA team. You still need them, but they can now work on very different issues, and you don't need to hire new people to work on the things they are now freed up to work on.
And again, I cannot over emphasize how much more control over your own time AWS gives you. It's night/day, and discounting that is a mistake.
AWS is a hell of a lot better than most people here can come up with for solving AWS specific set of problems and priorities. But those problems and priorities generally do not match the problem space of the people using it exactly.
For example, AWS has a lot of complexity for dealing with services and deployment because it needs to be versatile enough to meet wildly different scenarios. In designing a solution for one company and their needs over the next few years, you wouldn't attempt to match what AWS does, because the majority of companies use only a small fraction of the available services, so that wouldn't be a good use of time and resources.
AWS is good enough for very many companies so they appeal to large chunks of the market, but let's not act like that makes them a perfect or "best" solution. They're just a very scaleable and versatile solution so it's unlikely they can't handle your problem. You'll often pay more for that scaleability and versatility though, and if you knew perfectly (or within good bounds) what to expect when designing a system, it's really not that hard to beat AWS on a cost and growth level with a well designed plan.
Edit: Whoops, s/dell/well/, but it probably works either way... ;)