Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjice | Hacker News Reader

> 23 billon that AWS users pissed away.

While I agree that running your own hardware can be _seriously_ cheaper, this is like saying that renting is a waste of money and everyone should purchase a home.

Capacity planning isn't easy for a lot of small companies. Neither is the engineering time to set up, manage, and troubleshoot the hardware. At a certain scale, these are no brainers to take into your own hands, but for a 15 person engineering team that's completely focused on the product, it would be pretty expensive in human cost to set up and manage your own hardware. Sometimes, it can be set-and-forget, but rarely will it be as set-and-forget as a cloud provider.

Is it more expensive overall? Yes. Is it "pissed away" money? In some cases, maybe. In many, no. The ease of running and reduced upfront capex is absolutely valuable.

View on HN

I used to setup a rack for a two person engineering team. It does take focus away sometimes. Particularly if the Colo lost A/C… but thankfully that’s not really an issue these days.

> this is like saying that renting is a waste of money and everyone should purchase a home

Renting is a waste of money and everyone (or at least a lot more people than at present) should own one's own home, whether on their own or via e.g. a housing cooperative.

Everyone doesn't have the same goals as you and putting things in italics doesn't make you right

It ain't the italics that make me right, but the things I write :)

There was a good rent vs buy calculator I found years ago, not sure which one it was, but it doesn't even make financial sense in some scenarios, particularly for shorter terms.

While renting does typically cost more than owing, from a purely financial perspective, in practice you can argue that the difference is simply what you are paying the landlord for the services they are providing. The landlord is responsible for maintenance, taxes, insurance, and more. Not everybody wants to deal with those things. The landlord might be more efficient at those things too, especially in a rental apartment.

AWS might cost more but it provides a lot of benefits that are hard to assign a dollar value to.

> The landlord is responsible for maintenance, taxes, insurance, and more.

Those things are typically factored into estimates for ownership v. rental costs, and even with those factored in, renting costs more than owning. That really shouldn't be terribly surprising, either; if landlords only broke even on their rentals, then there would be no reason to be in the rental business instead of the property management business.

As some of the sibling comments have said, owning a home can be great if it's over a certain period of time and you know what you want, kind of like capacity planning. If you don't know what you need or you're not sure you're going to use it long term, renting can make sense (like the situation where AWS is a valuable use case).

If I know I'm going to be living in a city for two years, buying a home would likely be a bad idea. Sure we could talk about scenarios of renting it out and yada yada, but we're getting into corner cases in a comment section of a thread about AWS pricing :)

Right, but how many people know they're only going to be in a city for two years? Most people intend to be in a place long-term; moving is in and of itself relatively expensive (even more so the further you move) and tends to be avoided unless there's good reason to do so or unless there's no other option.

And bringing things back to AWS pricing: yeah, at first you might not know exactly what you need capacity-wise, but at some point (assuming you're actually measuring resource usage) you start to get a feel for what you need day-to-day and where things are trending. Much like with living arrangements, infrastructure hosting tends to have at least some pieces that you know you're gonna need long-term.

The more compelling reason to go with IaaS/PaaS is the convenience of not needing to run your own servers in your own rack - and it's that convenience that you're paying for, at a premium compared to hiring sysadmins. For a lot of businesses that's cost-effective, because they don't have/need enough infra to keep a sysadmin busy, but at some point that flips.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com