I'm struggling to understand what you're suggesting here, to be honest. First of all, banks don't sell cloud compute, so no bank is going to do that. Secondly, what does "work financially the same" mean? These are fundamentally different products, AWS is a service, Oxide is purchasing hardware that you then own.
> $1m buys you 42U of, whatever. You're handed an AWS account you do not pay for, but it has the $1m worth of, whatever in it, in perpetuity. Maybe the bank even throws in some fakey market you can "part out" and "sell" your rack to, years later, at some "market price."
What would be the advantage to anyone in this arrangement? Why not just have an AWS account in this case?
> "AWS stays greedy longer than the average Y Combinator company stays private"
Just to be clear, we are not a yc company. But beyond that:
> The problem with AWS isn't even that they are expensive. It's that Amazon is greedy. It could be cheaper, which is a different thing than being expensive.
It is true that if Amazon dropped prices, then the "rent vs buy" equation changes for some customers. But there always will be some people for whom it makes sense to own, and some people for whom it makes sense to buy.
> RudderStack, Weights & Biases
Neither of these companies seem to sell general cloud computing? They also don't sell hardware? These seem like completely different businesses.
> So what IS it?
We sell servers. Customers buy those servers, put them in a data center, and get a private cloud. That's the business. Other folks are doing similar sorts of things, but they all tend to be integrating parts from various vendors. We believe that our product is of a higher quality, because we built the whole thing, from the ground up. Hardware and software, working together. There are other things that matter as well, but that's the big picture.