Hacker News Reader

Comment by adreamingsoul | Hacker News Reader

These comments are fascinating to me.

I was responsible for designing, leading, and building the frontend for an AWS service. One of the challenges was with obtaining useful feedback from a diverse range of people. During the product definition phase, the majority of the feedback, input, and feature priority was for customers who were planning to dedicate a large budget towards using said service. I often felt that stakeholder decisions sacrified usability for feasibility.

Regardless, it was the responsibility of my service team to seek and obtain feedback, input, and data points that could help us inform our decisions. But from what I witnessed, it only went as far as to validate our exisiting concepts and user personas of how people use AWS services. Going beyond that was seen as unnecessary.

The universal thinking within AWS is that people will ultimately use the API/CLI/SDK. So, investment into the console is on a case by case basis. Some services have dedicated engineers or teams to focus on the console, but most don’t.

I’m proud of what I built. I hope that my UI decisions and focus on usability are benefiting the customers of that service that I helped build.

A little known fact, in the AWS console exists a feedback tool (look in the footer) that will send feedback straight to the service team. I encourage you to submit your thoughts, ideas, and feedback through that tool. There are people and service teams who value that feedback.

View on HN

Noting your verb tense, “I was”, I’m assuming you’re no longer in that role. This isn’t feedback, just discussion.

I talked to Jassy after his keynote in 2018: “Your message says AWS is for ‘builders’. Why do you keep saying ‘just click and ...’ instead of ‘just call the API and’?”

In short, to your point: AWS is for builders... who pay. And right now all the growth is in enterprise, where we don’t know how to make API calls from a command line.

We don’t know how, because two decades of IT practices and security practices made sure we couldn’t make API calls from a command line. (No access to install CLI tools, no proxy, firewall rules from the S3 era still classify AWS as cloud storage and block it, etc.) So we can’t adopt AWS at all if that’s the only path in. But our proxy teams can figure out how to open a console URL. For this market, giving a point and click web page with magic infra behind it is a big deal: the modern ‘service catalog’.

So I think he’s right, that’s the dominant use case by dollar count and head count, and he’s speaking to those deciders.

At the same time, I think it’s terrible when capabilities show up in the console first or only, as the infra-as-code builders can’t code infra and services through the console.

So to anyone following along from a team with two pizzas: invest in the UI, but please nail the APIs first, and then use those from the console. Keep yourselves honest to the Bezos imperative from 15 years back: if you want it in the console, so do IaC developers, so let there be an API for that.

So we can’t adopt AWS at all if that’s the only path in. But our proxy teams can figure out how to open a console URL. For this market, giving a point and click web page with magic infra behind it is a big deal: the modern ‘service catalog

And then your bean counters are going to be rightfully confused about why they are spending so much more on infrastructure when “they moved to the cloud” without changing their people and/or processes.

But then again, they probably listened to some old school net ops folks who watched one ACloudGuru video, passed a multiple choice AWS certification, called themselves “consultants” when all they were were a bunch of “lift and shifters”.

The AWS APIs documentation is excellent, I have no qualms with it, other than some inconsistencies in payloads/naming across services.

The console should be for exploration/discovery and if you're actually building production infrastucture by pointing and clicking, well, shame on you.

> In short, to your point: AWS is for builders... who pay. And right now all the growth is in enterprise, where we don’t know how to make API calls from a command line.

Infact AWS's HSM devices intentionally don't have an API, as "security feature."

Most AWS services' console/API are 1-1. Occasionally a console might offer some convenience features which are just a combination of API calls, but I'm not aware of any service that has functionality solely offered in the console. As the original comment touched on, this would be really unusual in AWS where most attention goes to the APIs/SDKs which are what larger customers use.

>but I'm not aware of any service that has functionality solely offered in the console

Historically, there have been some big ones, including some features related to pretty core services - I am fairly sure some autoscaling related features were console only for some time before an API was added. Instance limits were a console only feature for a year or so before DescribeEC2InstanceLimits was a thing.

It's not just historic examples, either.

Basically all of Quicksight outside of group/user management lacks an API today. Which is particularly annoying for some of my use cases, since the more technical folks generally will use Athena directly, and the people that want to use quicksight to examine the data are the ones that are less technical, which means needing other people to go and manually configure data sources, setup refresh schedules, etc. I'd love to be able to shove all of that into cloudformation and do it programmatically, but since it lacks APIs to begin with, I can't do it in cloudformation even as a custom resource via lambda.

Lots of features within Amazon Connect are console only.

There are definitely some API-only things. Mostly edge cases. For example, last week I ran into the fact that it's only possible to associate a Route 53 Hosted Zone with a VPC from a different account via the API.

Your parent comment is stating the reverse. That there is no web console only features.

>In short, to your point: AWS is for builders... who pay. And right now all the growth is in enterprise, where we don’t know how to make API calls from a command line.

I work pretty extensively with enterprise companies that are on AWS, and most make significant use of the APIs and command line. Lots of these companies are ones that I am helping move to AWS, and their teams are frequently excited at being able to utilize the command line and API as much as possible.

>We don’t know how, because two decades of IT practices and security practices made sure we couldn’t make API calls from a command line. (No access to install CLI tools, no proxy, firewall rules from the S3 era still classify AWS as cloud storage and block it, etc.) So we can’t adopt AWS at all if that’s the only path in. But our proxy teams can figure out how to open a console URL. For this market, giving a point and click web page with magic infra behind it is a big deal: the modern ‘service catalog’.

This also sounds pretty crazy to me. It's not a situation I've ever spoken to anyone in, and quite frankly: If your security and networking teams are unable to figure out how to open access to API endpoints that are all documented, you need new people on those teams. It's also certainly possible to proxy the API and command line calls to these endpoints, as well.

>So to anyone following along from a team with two pizzas: invest in the UI, but please nail the APIs first, and then use those from the console. Keep yourselves honest to the Bezos imperative from 15 years back: if you want it in the console, so do IaC developers, so let there be an API for that

I 100% agree with this, though. I want APIs for everything, but a lot of people like the console for discoverability and gaining familiarity - not everyone can grok what something is from reading the API documentation as they can from poking at it with the console, even if they ultimately do end up managing it elsewhere. Build great APIs, build a great console on top of those APIs, and everyone is better off for it.

> If your security and networking teams are unable to figure out how to open access to API endpoints that are all documented, you need new people on those teams

Careful, it's not yet 100% possible to do this 100% securely today across all endpoints for all services. Getting closer though.

> This also sounds pretty crazy to me. It's not a situation I've ever spoken to anyone in...

This would seem to disqualify much of your comment. Have a chat with AWS Pro Serv members handling accounts of companies with billion dollar IT budgets.

> I work pretty extensively with enterprise companies that are on AWS...

Most enterprises are not on AWS. That's where the growth will be, and who my comment is about.

>This would seem to disqualify much of your comment. Have a chat with AWS Pro Serv members handling accounts of companies with billion dollar IT budgets.

I work with companies that have budgets that large. Your situation still sounds very atypical to me.

>Most enterprises are not on AWS. That's where the growth will be, and who my comment is about.

I mean, maybe if you take that out of context and ignore the part where I say 'Lots of these companies are ones that I am helping move to AWS'...

Google's cloud put a CLI in the web console. Its hilariously ironic but it solves for this, I suppose.

As did Azure, quite some time ago. Many docs articles say go to the azure portal and open the web console to continue this set of instructions

So did AWS. See https://aws.amazon.com/cloud9/

Not just a shell but a robust IDE in the cloud.

Cloud9 is amazing but it is not anything like a shell for use with the AWS API. It’s, like you said, a robust IDE. Not a terminal emulator.

> firewall rules from the S3 era still classify AWS as cloud storage and block it

For all of the major data leaks from S3 buckets, I suspect the existence (and persistence) of these firewall rules across the industry is a principal reason why there haven't been significantly more of these leaks.

My frustration is more commonly the opposite.

Adopt an AWS service through the console. Then discover advanced feature [X] can only be done from the CLI via APIs.

> universal thinking within AWS is that people will ultimately use the API/CLI/SDK

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) - But still 99% of tutorials and documentation refer to the UI.

To be fair, the AWS documentation nearly always covers both.

an outdated version of both.

Here's a bunch of buttons! What do you mean you didn't install the CLI, discover your system has mixed up versions of the package manager, and finally get around to running this convoluted command, after you learn how to get a list of IDs from your organization with the CLI

The AWS cli is a simple pip install and the CLI documentation nearly universally includes samples. Input and output can be JSON. There are a lot of legitimate complaints about AWS but the CLI is pretty decent.

It has a steep learning curve.

Every time something new roles out and AWS doesn't have a button for that one thing, your static site trying to follow the best practices now needs to know this and have python package managers installed and updated.

I would say it is a legitimate complaint, it is a horrible user experience amongst people who aren't even considering what other people would think of it.

> It has a steep learning curve.

I mean, I guess if you are new to AWS entirely. I find the documentation for most things accessible and easy. For the things I want more information on or I'm not clear, support is fairly quick to help and point to the documentation. Most of the time it's the documentation I skipped because I assumed I knew it.

I personally dislike the CLI until I am very familiar with the AWS service I am learning or in early phase if using. Even then the CLI is usually a last resort. The Web UI is much more discoverable and understandable than having three terminal windows and a web browser open to figure out what to do with whatever random long ID on the CLI.

Assuming everyone, even extremely experienced AWS users like me, will just use the CLI seems like a mistake.

I use the console for discoverability, proof of concepts, and quickly reviewing what’s going on. But for any real resource creation, I will then duplicate the steps with CloudFormation or a Python script (or both) and once I verify it, tear down the manually created resources.

The only time I find the CLI useful is for S3.

I've had to use AWS in the past professionally. The general categories of problems I've seen with AWS are threefold:

1. Each individual service in AWS may be perfectly well designed, but there are now about 5000 services in AWS, which means there's 5000^2 possible interactions between services. Services interact in strange ways, and there's no visibility (and no documentation) into exactly how. You can write 5000 bug-free functions, but that doesn't mean you'll end up with a bug-free program.

2. The craftsmanship that goes into each element of the AWS console is poor. Controls don't work like I expect, and don't work like similar controls elsewhere. Error messages are terrible, or missing, and don't give any clue what is actually going on, or what secret AWS-specific trick I need to use to fix it. I've wasted hours of my life on those spinners because it's not even clear if an action will occur right away, in 30 seconds, or 30 minutes. What is one supposed to do when they click a button, wait a few minutes, go to lunch, and come back to see "at least one of the environment termination workflows failed"?

3. The documentation and support is lousy. I've asked a few questions on AWS's own forums, and never gotten any response at all. The above error message appears in exactly one forum post, and AWS finally got back to them after 2 weeks, and it was all done via PM so I learned nothing from it. I've used the 'Feedback' button, and when I get a reply, it feels like some combination of "it's your fault" and "you should have googled harder".

> designing, leading, and building the frontend for an AWS service

Designing the frontend for an AWS service doesn't help with the biggest problems. It's like designing a city by designing apartments and offices, with no thought given to roads or signs.

> The universal thinking within AWS is that people will ultimately use the API/CLI/SDK.

I can't understand this. If someone can't get the web console to work, they're not going to say "I know, I'll just write everything by hand with the API instead". The web console is essentially your landing page and your trial combined. Do all your "personas" consist of people who build for the web but never use the web? Or who try a service, and when they can't get it to work, they double down on it?

> I can't understand this. If someone can't get the web console to work, they're not going to say "I know, I'll just write everything by hand with the API instead". The web console is essentially your landing page and your trial combined.

As a personal anecdote, my first interaction with AWS was to try and adjust the size of some elasticsearch disks. Not knowing better I tried to do it through the UI, only to find some crazy inconsistencies were the tooltip would say to type any size between 5 and 50 GB while the current value was 100GB. Even if you clicked "apply" with the current value of 100 you'd get an error message. I tried different browsers and it seemed to be a browser-specific issue.

After that I delved into the terraform that was used to provision all our AWS resources and I haven't looked back since. Apart from the obvious benefits of keeping your infrastructure as code and automation etc, terraform actually helped me understand how all the different services we had worked together and allowed me to get a grasp of our infrastructure layout quicker.

I would seriously discourage anyone from using the console for anything other than searching logs or managing DNS records (terraform is a bit flaky on that regard)

The API sucks, too, though, when used from the command line. Every non-automated way of interacting with AWS is like pulling teeth, and in reality most people do this all the time. You can't automate a process you've never done manually, and you don't necessarily want to invest in building out an automation which you only need to do a few times. It's like AWS's excuse is "we offload the problem of a good UI onto our users", which in my opinion is really stupid. All it would take is one UI team which made common tools and standards for UI design and applied them throughout. The API has a consistent design throughout, so why not the UI?

Approximately how much does one have to spend per month to get prioritized feature improvements? We spend about $200k per month, and AWS treats us like we’re unimportant.

I would like to try Azure or Google a try, but neither seem to make it easy to transfer Petabytes.

I wouldn't expect those services to offer you much more personal attention, honestly.

Amazon does have vendor and seller managers who are allocated to specific vendors/sellers. I'm surprised that for a $2.4M/year AWS customer (presumably with the highest support level) that they wouldn't have a similar setup. That said, having personal attention from a manager is definitely not the same as getting features actually built for you.

With the highest support level you do receive TAMs and Solutions Architects within AWS. They can add feature requests and make sure that influence is added for you and follow up directly with Product Managers to explain why a feature is important.

But, sometimes a high amount of spend on a service isn't really much more than the average. For instance, if you spend 200k/mo on a niche service then you'll get a ton of say in how things move forward, but if you spend 200k/mo on EC2 you might not be able to strongarm anything.

How about saying something like ‘for gods sake, make your UI experience consistent!’, would that work?

I agree, at 2.4M/year, i'm surprised you don't get more. we spend about 150k/month on Azure services, and it seems like we get a lot more service and roadmap influence....

In my experience a lot of it comes down to how effective their account team is. A good one will communicate with and work to influence the product management at AWS and set up meetings to discuss things as necessary. A bad one can get feedback from the customers they are assigned to and never do anything with it, or send off an email and never follow up.

Azure does a pretty good job of engaging with you, though it's more of a support role to help you during setup and less about feature requests. I'm sure they do those too, but prioritizing them would be a black box.

I've come from an organization with a $250K monthly AWS spend. It was impossible to talk to anyone without spending an additional $25K/mo for a support contract. Insane.

Have you tried databox? You can send up 80 TB in one shot. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/databox/data-box-over...

Can you address user complaints about resets to the root view and non functioning sorting?

Both seem to be bugs and single user report should be sufficient to identify and fix the issue. I think you make it look more complicated than it is.

I think that the vast majority of UI's in AWS are perfectly fine. But there's one that drives my entire team insane: the AWS Parameter Store

Holy mother of god, the search on it is horrific and simply doesn't work. Heartfelt begging through the feedback tool goes unanswered. I have offered money, firstborn children, sacrificial goats, virtually everything. But the search is still broken :( I've had to scroll through a hundred pages of parameters to find things.

Parameter Store is such a god awful experience via the UI. But everything about parameter store is awful.

- severe unchangeable, undocumented limits before you get throttled. Throttling is so bad that if you have too many parameter store resources in your CloudFormation template it will start causing errors because CF is trying to call the API too quickly - the only way around it is to use DependsOn and chain the creation.

- no way of creating an encrypted value with CF without a custom resource.

We ended up just using DynamoDB for config anda Custom CloudFormation resource to create values in it.

You should never depend on Parameter Store as a reliable key/value store for configuration.

We've hit the throttling issue many, many times. Everything about Parameter Store is difficult. And its a shame. Its such a simple concept. They have enormous resources, so why not throw a couple of devs at it?

In any case, we do also use redis. It might be worthwhile to pitch an idea to move over to that. But we pull the parameters in bash scripts using a custom tool called aws-env, so we'd probably have to make or find something similar for redis.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/systems-manager/latest/userguide...

I believe this is a new(ish?) feature, but someone from AWS Support recently pointed it out to me when dealing with throttling issues. Might be of interest to you.

Yeah it’s relatively new. It just became available in April.

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2019/04/aws_syste...

The only part of the console that I absolutely hate is dealing with the Parameter Store. But I hate everything else about the parameter store too so there is that.

CodePipeline is pretty bad too. There is no way you can create a cross account code pipeline from the console.

CloudWatch log filters are pretty bad too. I basically just use ctrl + f now in cw logs to find what I'm looking for.

Emit your logs in JSON for structural search and use CloudWatch Logs Insights. It's actually really very good these days--we have an ELK cluster because the team is used to the Kibana interface but I rarely if ever use it.

I haven't had this problem. For simple string searches CloudWatch returns exactly what I'm looking for, even for partial word matches, and for more complicated queries there is the excellent Insights feature.

Oh yeah. They are horrible. I agree completely. For C#, I use Serilog for logging to both a Cloudwatch sink and a ElasticSearch sink. Before I’ve used a Mongo sink.

Cross account setups from the console are generally not allowed.

You can assign cross account permissions for S3, sharing AMIs, sharing KMS keys, SNS permissions, etc.

I primarily use the api to create and manage infrastructure, but I still use the console to view my infrastructure, and it is pretty painful.

Interesting. I’ve always found it befuddling as a generalist with a relatively high learning curve. I gave it the benefit of the doubt until Google Cloud started rolling out its updates with far better documentation and interfaces. That said, AWS has way better customer support.

I bet GCS docs will not keep up with changes to GCS very well either, judging by other Google docs. Start out good, don't keep up with changes. AWS docs are relatively good at keeping up with changes.

Google's docs are the most inconsistent. The newer the service the better the documentation in my experience. The App Engine docs are like a rats nest, but the Firestore docs are really well done.

My guess is they now care a lot more about Google Cloud than previous product endeavors. I’d also guess that people at Google would put in a ton of effort on documentation to avoid having to speak to people on the phone.

I'm honestly surprised there was only one team in charge of UX for the AWS gui.

It always felt like each product did their own UX because of all the various inconsistency between different areas. I don't have any examples off-hand, but anyone who's used it would probably agree with me.

For the record, I think the AWS GUI is sufficient, but not very good. If you login to GCP, see that feedback button in the upper right on each page? Product managers have emailed me back asking for more information, or explaining features when I've used that feedback button.

It's definitely not a single team in charge of the UX. UX is a centralized department but each team can get UX Managers, UX Designers, and UX Researchers. The headcount for those roles come from each individual organization.

Nowadays there's a workflow to ship new consoles and big features that require UI changes but there are still many consoles built on the legacy design system and designing or improving those is pretty hard. The right decision is to migrate those consoles to the design system but that is a painful process.

Purely from speculation: AWS console looks and feels like it was designed and built by a ton of different teams that did a poor job working with and empowering each other. When services intermingle the console gets really confusing. Like "why am I in EC2? I'm making security groups and have zero EC2 systems."

Any truth to this sense I get?

>Like "why am I in EC2? I'm making security groups and have zero EC2 systems."

Security Groups were initially an EC2 only concept. You couldn't write security groups for SQS or S3, and they came about alongside EC2.

Obviously EC2 is no longer the only service that utilize security groups, but it's an artifact of when they were.

(I'm not saying this is how it should be, just answering the 'why' part of the question ;))

"The universal thinking within AWS is that people will ultimately use the API/CLI/SDK."

What is odd is that during the Chicago summit one of the presenters explicitly said that most of their customers use the UI instead of API/automation. I don't recall the percentage but it was higher than I imagined.

Maybe I'm just being overly sympathetic, but having worked on UIs with complicated UX, I know how extremely hard it is to get right. Especially with something so complicated and sprawling as the AWS console. There's plenty of irritations, but the fact that it works as well as it does is amazing.

Persona of a person wanting to study AWS for commercial projects at one of AWS's biggest clients:

- Create account. Enter credit card details, but verification SMS never shows up. Ask for help.

- I get called at night (I'm abroad) by an American service employee, we do verification over the phone.

- Try to get the hang of things myself. Lost in a swamp of different UI's. Names of products don't clarify what they do, so you first need to learn to speak AWS, which is akin to using a chain of 5 dictionaries to learn a single language.

- Do the tutorials. Tutorials are poorly written, in that they take you by the hand and make you do stuff you have no idea what you are actually doing (Ow, I just spun up a load balancer? What is that and how does it work?).

- Do more tutorials. Tutorials are badly outdated. Now you have a hold your hands tutorial, leading you through the swamp, but every simple step you bump your knee against an UI element or layout that does not exist in the tutorial. Makes you feel like you wasted your time, and that there is no one at AWS even aware that tutorials may need updating if one design department gets the urge to justify their spending by a redesign.

- Give up and search for recent books or video courses. Anything older than 3-4 years is outdated (either the UI's have changed, deprecated, or new products have been added).

- Receive an email in the middle of the night: You've hit 80% of your free usage plan. Log in. Click around for 20 minutes, until I find the load balancer is still up (weird, could have sworn I spun that entire tutorial down). Kill it, go back to sleep.

- Next night, new email: You've gone 3.24 $ over your free budget. Please pay. 30 minutes later: We've detected unusual activity on your account. 1 hour later: Your account has been de-activited. AWS takes fraud and non-payment very seriously.

Now I need a new phone number/name/address to create a new account. I am always anxious that AWS will charge for something that I don't want, and can't find the UI that shows all running tutorial stuff that I really don't want to pay for. I know the UI is unintuitive, non-consistent, and out-of-sync with the technical - and tutorial writers. And I know that learning AWS, consists of learning where tutorials and books are out-dated, or stumbling around until you find the correct set of sequences in a "3 minutes max." tutorial step.

AWS has grown fat and lazy. The lack of design - and onboarding consistency is typical for a company of that size. Outdated tutorials show a lack of inter-team communication, and seems to indicate that no one at AWS reruns the onboarding tutorials every month, so they can know what their customers are complaining about (or why they, like me, try to shun their mega-presence).

(EDIT: The order of my experiences may be a bit jumbled. Sorry. More constructive feedback: 1) I'd want a safe tutorial environment, with no (perceived) risk of having to pay for dummy services. 2) I want the tutorial writer to have the customer's best interest in mind: "For a smaller site, load balancing may be overkill, and can double your hosting costs for no tangible gains." beats "Hey Mark, we need more awareness and usage on the new load balancer. I need you to write a stand-alone tutorial, and add the load balancer to the sample web page tutorial." 3) Someone responsible for updating the tutorials (even if: "This step is deprecated. Please hold on for a correction") 4) A unified and consistent UI and UX. Scanning, searching, sorting, etc. should work without making me think, I don't want a different UI model for every service. Someone or some team to create the same recipes and boundaries for the different 2-pizza teams, so I don't get a pizza UI with all possible ingredients.)

It seems like the real issue is that you wanted to create an entire business critical infrastructure on top of a technology that you didn’t know.

How was this a good idea? I’m horribly inexperienced with modern web development but I know the rest of the stack pretty well - backend, databases, AWS networking and most of their standard technologies, CI/CD etc. When I was responsible for setting up everything for a green field project, I pulled in someone who was much better than I was for the front end even though I could have muddled my way through. Why would I take the risk?

Because people have to learn somehow?

Building my startup on Google Cloud, I knew nothing about cloud services, and I had none of these issues.

Yes you have to learn but I wouldn’t be learning when something was mission critical.

Literally millions of people use AWS everyday. So what’s more likely that the issue is with AWS or the implementer?

It took me watching one Pluralsight video to map what I knew about an on prem implementation to AWS. Of course I learned more as I went along.

I had never done any back end work before.

In less than 2 hours I had auth'd https rest endpoints up and running with logging.

Deploying new endpoints is as easy as exporting a function in my code and typing deploy on the command line. This isn't after some sort of complex configuration, it is after creating a new project via 1 cli command that asks for the project name and not much else!

Google's cloud stuff, especially everything under the Firebase branding, is incredibly easy to use. Getting my serverless functions talking to my DB is almost automatic (couple lines of code).

Everything just works. The docs are wonky in places, but everything just works. The other day I threw in cloud storage, never done cloud storage before, had photo hosting working in about an hour, most of that being front end UI dev time. Everything fully end to end authenticated for editing and non-auth for reads, super easy to set that all up. No confusing service names, no need to glue stuff together, just call the API and tell it to start uploading. (Still need to add a progress indicator and a retry button...)

Everything about Google's cloud services has been like that so far. While I regret going no-sql, I can't fault the services for usability.

And you could do the same thing with lambda/DynamoDB/API Gateway just as easily by using one of the wizards.

What you can do as a hobby project is much different than the parent poster who was trying to deploy an enterprise grade setup with an existing legacy infrastructure. How would you know if GCP is easy based on your limited experience? Not trying to sound harsh, as well as I know AWS, I would be completely loss trying to manage any non AWS infrastructure. Just like I said about the front end in my original response, if I were responsible for setting up a complicated on prem or colo infrastructure from scratch, I would hire someone.

“It’s a poor craftsmen who blames his tools”.

A guy that works with us was also an inexperienced back end developer except with PHP. He was able to easily figure out how to host his front end code with S3 and create lambdas in Node after I sent him a link to a $12 Udemy course. I only had to explain to him how to configure the security groups to connect to our Aurora/MySQL instance.

I can't really explain how easy it is. There are no hidden charges, monthly usage is easy and clear to understand. For small to medium sized apps there isn't even any configuration. I'll be throwing tens of thousands of users, tiny I know, on a service that had 0 configuration done beyond typing its name. In fact I'm 100% sure my VMs on DO are going to give under load first.

To put it another way, there is a healthy industry of people whose sole job is to come in and figure out why AWS is billing too much.

FWIW I showed one of my friends at Amazon how easily I can create and deploy serverless code on Firebase, he admitted it is far easier than what AWS offers.

The downside of this is that options are fewer. If I want a beefier VM my choices are limited, and the way pooling and VM reuse is done is well documented and not at all under my control. It is like cloud on training wheels (TBF to gcp it is possible to opt-in to more complexity for many services, but the serverless function stuff is pretty bare bones on options, arguably as it should be)

But take auth for example. Firebase auth is amazing. Using it is beyond simple, and within the Google ecosystem everything just works so well.

Guess what? Do you really think that there aren’t GCP consultants for any serious development?

Lambda, cognito, api Gateway and DynamoDB is dead simple.

You’re not doing anything complicated. Just because you can set up a little hobby project doesn’t mean it would be any simpler for a real enterprise app.

The number of users as long as the Serverless offerings from cloud providers has everything you need isn’t complicated based on the number of users. All Serverless offerings are optimized for this.

There are also WordPress consultants, does that mean that Wordpress is complicated or that there are people without the capacity (time not intelligence) to learn it.

You don’t have to “explain” how easy it is. The Node tutorial I use to learn it used Firebase.

“Millions of people use AWS” you say in a thread where people are complaining about AWS’s poor usability linked to a comment thread on another site where even more people are complaining about AWS’s usability.

The biggest and best rebuttal against your comment is the mere existence of every other comment in both of these threads.

Yes because an HN thread with 236 comments including people who know what they are doing is representative of anything.

Would it also be proof that React is an unusable framework just because I haven’t taken time to learn it even though millions of people use it everyday?

You can find “rebuttals” about the safety of vaccines on the Internet. Does that mean anything?

Created an account to say how much I love this. I'm all for learning your stack well enough for confusing situations but you expect better from AWS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com