I don't understand how it takes 3 years to get off the cloud. I'm not a cloud developer, though. The most I've done is run code on free hosts or compute instances. Presumably there's something to the microservices and lambdas and distributed compute that makes this hard. I'm thinking if this was a monolith (like AWS themselves admit is cheaper), they could just run it locally? What a giant waste of money. I'm very glad to start seeing xAAS start to die out. At the end of the day it's just looking like more middle-men instead of how I've always assumed it was intended to be: economies of scale.
However, and missing from this article + discussion so far, is their revenue. If they pay $4/day and make $2 in revenue, that's bad. They pay $300k/day but make ~ $2250k/day in revenue. I don't know what the ratio is supposed to be, but at first blush that doesn't actually seem too bad. I'll let the more qualified take over, I'm struggling to find out how big a % of their total expenses this is.
A mistake I see commonly whenever someone says to "just move off of the cloud" is that they see the cloud as just a VM provider. If it was, then yeah, moving to another provider wouldn't be such a big deal.
In reality, the cloud creeps into your systems in all sorts of ways. Your permissions use cloud identities, your firewalls are based on security group referencing, your cross-region connectivity relies on cloud networking products, you're managing secrets and secret rotation using cloud secrets management, your observability is based on cloud metrics, your partners have whitelisted static ip ranges that belong to the cloud provider, your database upgrades are automated by the cloud provider, your VM images are built specifically for your cloud provider, your auditing is based on the cloud provider's logs, half the items in your security compliance audit reference things that are solved by your cloud provider, your applications are running on a container scheduler managed by your cloud provider, your serverless systems are strongly coupled distributed monoliths dependent on events on cloud specific event buses, your disaster recovery plans depend on your cloud provider's backup or region failover capabilities, etc. Not to mention that when you have several hundred systems, you're not going to be moving them all at the same time. They still need to be able to communicate during the transition period (extra fun when your service-to-service authentication is dependent on your cloud) without any downtime.
It's not just a matter of dropping a server binary onto a VM from a different provider. If I think about how long it would take my org to move fully off of _a_ cloud (just to a different cloud with somewhat similar capabilities), 3 years doesn't sound unrealistic.
To me it's the same thing. You can pay somebody to care about that, but they might be underutilized for the majority of time so it's not worth it. If you have a service, instead of your security expert being used idk 1/x of full time, they can be y/x where y is the number of contracts. For me and my time we are just way too small to have somebody full-time dedicated. So that's how I think about it
It is a reasonable point. But i think it is not exactly that. Having your organisation focus on maintenance is a certain type of opportunity cost. It is pretty often one of your most knowledgeable engineer that does this. And it also interrupts the flow of many of your other engineers.
The services are the "easy" part; moving data out of a cloud provider is slow and expensive. For a _really_ big dataset it can take months, sometimes years, just to complete the data transfer.
Any chance we can get a high-level breakdown of the AWS services they are paying for?
I don't understand how it takes 3 years to get off the cloud. I'm not a cloud developer, though. The most I've done is run code on free hosts or compute instances. Presumably there's something to the microservices and lambdas and distributed compute that makes this hard. I'm thinking if this was a monolith (like AWS themselves admit is cheaper), they could just run it locally? What a giant waste of money. I'm very glad to start seeing xAAS start to die out. At the end of the day it's just looking like more middle-men instead of how I've always assumed it was intended to be: economies of scale.
However, and missing from this article + discussion so far, is their revenue. If they pay $4/day and make $2 in revenue, that's bad. They pay $300k/day but make ~ $2250k/day in revenue. I don't know what the ratio is supposed to be, but at first blush that doesn't actually seem too bad. I'll let the more qualified take over, I'm struggling to find out how big a % of their total expenses this is.
A mistake I see commonly whenever someone says to "just move off of the cloud" is that they see the cloud as just a VM provider. If it was, then yeah, moving to another provider wouldn't be such a big deal.
In reality, the cloud creeps into your systems in all sorts of ways. Your permissions use cloud identities, your firewalls are based on security group referencing, your cross-region connectivity relies on cloud networking products, you're managing secrets and secret rotation using cloud secrets management, your observability is based on cloud metrics, your partners have whitelisted static ip ranges that belong to the cloud provider, your database upgrades are automated by the cloud provider, your VM images are built specifically for your cloud provider, your auditing is based on the cloud provider's logs, half the items in your security compliance audit reference things that are solved by your cloud provider, your applications are running on a container scheduler managed by your cloud provider, your serverless systems are strongly coupled distributed monoliths dependent on events on cloud specific event buses, your disaster recovery plans depend on your cloud provider's backup or region failover capabilities, etc. Not to mention that when you have several hundred systems, you're not going to be moving them all at the same time. They still need to be able to communicate during the transition period (extra fun when your service-to-service authentication is dependent on your cloud) without any downtime.
It's not just a matter of dropping a server binary onto a VM from a different provider. If I think about how long it would take my org to move fully off of _a_ cloud (just to a different cloud with somewhat similar capabilities), 3 years doesn't sound unrealistic.
Which is exactly why you don't make the mistake of relying on all that.
If you can't run it locally, don't use it unless you have absolutely no choice.
> I don't understand how it takes 3 years to get off the cloud.
Because in fact cloud is not just someone else's computer.
> I've always assumed it was intended to be: economies of scale
IMO, the value proposition these days is rather to avoid maintenance. I.e. help with up with all the latest patches on your infrastructure.
To me it's the same thing. You can pay somebody to care about that, but they might be underutilized for the majority of time so it's not worth it. If you have a service, instead of your security expert being used idk 1/x of full time, they can be y/x where y is the number of contracts. For me and my time we are just way too small to have somebody full-time dedicated. So that's how I think about it
It is a reasonable point. But i think it is not exactly that. Having your organisation focus on maintenance is a certain type of opportunity cost. It is pretty often one of your most knowledgeable engineer that does this. And it also interrupts the flow of many of your other engineers.
The services are the "easy" part; moving data out of a cloud provider is slow and expensive. For a _really_ big dataset it can take months, sometimes years, just to complete the data transfer.
On what jeeeeeeezus
Utterly bananas.
Seriously the CTO should be fired.