Or put it in another way, if Mojong were to start with Azure but couldn't manage to migrate to AWS, which provider is the parent going to write off?
It was easier to go to AWS than to Azure; and I've done both in the past ~4 years. Migrating to AWS was just technical work. Migrating to azure was 'fight unexpected bugs and the fact it doesn't actually work in surprising situations'.
The only reason to go to azure was that Microsoft waved a big fat $$$ discount to use their services.
Migrating to AWS was a breeze.
We have a very long list of Azure features and services that we've banned people from using.
Just got off a call with someone at Azure today who told us to setup our own NAT gateway instead of using Azure's because of an outage where we made too many requests and then got our NAT Gateway quota taken away for the next 2 hours.
Maximum 55k concurrent connections. After that, they make you deploy NAT gateways in other availability zones. And a max throughput of 10 Gbps.
I imagine AWS would also tell you to deploy your own gateway if you were running into the 55k concurrent connection limit of managed NAT.
AWS tends to be flexible with their quota enforcement in my experience, though.
Care to point out a concrete example? I've worked with Azure a few years ago and I wouldn't describe it as buggy. At most, I accuse them of not "getting" cloud as well as AWS. For example, the whole concept of a function app is ass-backwards, vs just deploying a Lambda with a specific capacity. That is mainly a reflection of having more years working with AWS, though.
My experience with Azure is that it simply breaks in ridiculous and frankly unacceptable ways, all the time. It's like someone is unplugging network and power cables every couple hours just for fun.
I'm not sure how well founded the stability argument is. I still remember the infamous series of AWS outages that took place a couple of years ago.
The fact that AWS invests heavily in vendor lock-in is a problem created by AWS, not their competitors.
You decide if that’s more or less stable than AWS.
I’d say the evidence is pretty empirical, but hey, all I can say is my experience was utterly unambiguous.
You can argue a lot of things, but hundreds of azure fails in a big giant list is probably one of the tougher ones to go “no, this is fine compared to AWS!” about, imo.