So, they essentially saved the cost of one good engineer. Question is, are they spending 1 man-year of effort to maintain this setup themselves? If not, they made the right choice. Otherwise, it’s not as clear cut.
And your own computers require expertise so expensive and frightening that no sane company would host their own computers.
How Amazon created this alternate reality should be studied in business schools for the next 50 years. Amazon made the IT industry doubt its own technical capabilities so much that the entire industry essential gave up on the idea that it can run computer systems, and instead bought into the fabulously complex and expensive and technically challenging cloud systems, whilst still believing they were doing the simplest and cheapest thing.
Different solutions work best for different companies.
Each of these statements is utter BS
PS. Oopsy I just read their third paragraph ;)
Colocation is rarely worth it unless you have non-standard requirements. If you just need a general-purpose machine, any of the aforementioned providers will sort you out just fine.
Almost everything that the AWS specialist needs to know comes in after that and has some equivalent in bare metal world, so those costs don't disappear either.
In practice there are extra costs which may or may not make sense in each case. And there are companies that don't reassess their spending as well as they should. But there's no alternative realty really. (As in, the usually discussed complications of bare metal are not extremely overplayed)
Half that and half it again and I'd still be looking at a decent raise lmao
Edit: even then, TC is tied to how the stock market is doing, and not paid out by the company directly, so it only makes sense to compare with base wage plus benefits.
It doesn't take an extreme outlier to get significantly above $250k.
> so it only makes sense to compare with base wage plus benefits.
Not really, when stock approaches 40%+ of compensation, and is in RSU with fairly fast vesting schedule.
A lot of companies (like Amazon) will gleefully slash your salary if you try to move somewhere cheaper, because why should we pay you more if you don't just need that money to fork over to a landlord every month?
There's also all the things Americans go without, like socialized healthcare. Even with their lauded insurance plans they still pay significantly more for worse health outcomes than any other country
Of course then I would have to send my kids to schools with metal detectors and school shooting drills... It's not all about the money.
Just to mention, I hope I didn't come across as saying paid too much. I'm always astounded as to how much cash is thrown about over the pond is all. Go get that bag, hell yeah! :)
https://github.com/OneUptime/interview/blob/master/software-...
Side note: I'm in slight disbelief at how high that salary range is compared to how minimal the job requirements are.
Been there, done that, don't care to return to that life.
Fargate, S3, Aurora etc. These are managed services and are incredibly reliable.
Lot of people here seem to think these cloud providers are just a bunch of managed servers. It's far more than that.
And then there's the question of whether you're going to use Terraform, Ansible, CloudFormation, etc or click through the GUI to manage things.
My point is, nothing in AWS is 100% turnkey like a lot of folks pretend it is. Most of the time, it's leadership that thinks since AWS is "Cloud" that it's as simple as put in your credit card and you're done.
For smaller projects you can absolutely get away with just the UI.
You _should_ use IaC immediately as well, because the longer you delay, the more it's going to hurt when you finally do need it.
A bit in jest, but places I've worked where we've moved to the cloud ended up with more people managing k8s and building a platform and tooling, than when we had a simple inhouse scp upload to some servers.