Sunk cost fallacy.
I do agree that we should all plan for failures.
However, I also think it's a sign of failure in planning and architecture foresight if it's too expensive to move away from a particular cloud provider.
I do agree that we should all plan for failures.
However, I also think it's a sign of failure in planning and architecture foresight if it's too expensive to move away from a particular cloud provider.
There are plenty of cases where it just wouldn't make sense to switch after looking at the costs, opportunity costs, etc. For example, if his site makes him $10 a month, outages cost him $1 a month that could be mitigated by moving, and it would cost $1000 of labor to swap providers. (Depends on interest rates.)
Perhaps it was originally a failure to not have a plan to easily move from a provider, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that right now it may cost too many hours of work to justify the move.
Still stand behind the other two points I made in that post though.
There needs to be a clear financial win. Even taking into account the failures we've seen so far, I don't see a compelling reason to leave AWS.