>So if I’m “naively” assuming that you should be able to cite a real world case where a company needed more resources than AWS or Azure is willing to provide.
https://firstround.com/review/the-three-infrastructure-mista...
https://firstround.com/review/the-three-infrastructure-mista...
It makes it easy to do things like user identity. Authentication. Queueing. Email. Notifications. Seamless databases. These are all lightweight services that can save you a lot of time, but only if you’re using AWS. The magic (for Amazon) is that they deter people from migrating despite mounting costs for storage and bandwidth.
All of those lightweight services have publicly accessible endpoints that can be used in conjunction with self managed infrastructure either over the public internet, a VPN or a direct connect.
But, your contention that you quoted was that AWS/Azure “wasn’t willing to provide it”. Yet you posted an article where the cost of providing it wasn’t conducive to their business model.
Then I could always post about a little streaming service you might have heard of called Netflix that has all of its infrastructure besides its caching servers (that are colocated at ISPs) on AWS and the reason they decided to move to AWS.
https://www.se-radio.net/2014/12/episode-216-adrian-cockcrof...
But really what does it say about a company that is growing fast unprofitably? Were they profitable when they were spending $20K a month?