Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

Since I'm a team of one working on some Amazon services for a far smaller customer base, I get a broad slice of different technologies and problems to solve. I can't imagine being the person whose job is to manage some slice of the part of the stack that monitors just the billing portion of their aws usage.

But contemplating that scale also makes me better understand how these companies end up with hundreds of engineers to manage a product that on the surface really doesn't do a whole lot.

View on HN

AWS is expensive enough, and the pricing is hard enough, that you don't need a crazy scale before you have a team monitoring AWS expenses. It all depends on how much more revenue you'll get out of each engineer, but ignoring the most magical of companies, you probably want at least one person dedicated to this before you hit 200 engineers deploying to AWS.

And yes, a lot of the expense is invisible to the end user. Some well known companies end up spending significant percentages of their AWS budgets on building and running integration tests. Suddenly you also end up getting teams dedicated to improving just that.

Are you trying to say that Netflix as a product doesn't do a whole lot?

He's saying that on the surface it doesn't do a lot. But that he understands why it would take 100's of engineers.

You seem to be preparing to argue with someone, that definitely agrees with you.

BUT.. for if you just need someone to argue with.....

Netflix is a video library organization system, and a video player. It really doesn't do much. They should consider building the whole thing on WordPress and managing it with a single person.

He seems to be inferring that's mostly due to AWS management. Not going to take the bait, but it is an interesting phenomenon that a lot of people will look at an app that has a simple surface layer with an intuitive UX and not appreciate the difficulty of engineering that at scale.

I think you might need to read it again more charitably. To me it reads that it’s just the scale that requires a big team, nothing to do with AWS

Well, there are plenty of sites hosting pirated movies that are run by a couple of people.

At the end of the day -unless you really know how many tech/human resources something like netflix needs- you could wrongly asume a few guys could host the content on AWS, use a third party for billing and be done with it.

Their technology isn’t about here is a list of movies enjoy, their tech is about enticing people to watch thru List, recommendations, trends ... etc just like Uber isn’t a taxi company most of their tech is about optimising the pricing

AWS is totally uncompetitive if your looking to serve video though, Amazon's bandwidth pricing is something straight out of 1999, it is one of the largest pieces of their moat to lock people into AWS.

I'm one of those people the comment above you mentioned who runs a site hosting pirate media (it's all private before anyone asks)

Looked into AWS a while ago so I could throw some encrypted containers on it thinking it would be cheaper. Storage on S3 would have cost about four times as much as I'm paying now in VPS costs, and EFS (the service I actualy wanted) about ten times as much, and that's before looking at bandwidth. Oh and I'd still need at least one VPS to handle transcoding, content delivery etc.

I think Netflix save money by using S3 for the majority of their storage but having their own CDN so they use less bandwidth from AWS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com