
AWS co-branding guide forbids mentioning multi-cloud - NicoJuicy
https://www.crn.com.au/news/aws-forbids-partners-even-mentioning-multi-cloud-529598
======
AaronFriel
> AWS _Partner_ Network

> AWS won’t even let _partners_ use the word _“partner”_ in some cases. When
> it comes to joint engineering or co-development, AWS won’t let partners use
> the words “partner,” “partnership,” “partnering” or “alliance,” opting for
> terms like “agreement,” “teamed,” or “in cooperation” instead.

The not very cynical take is, the person(s) responsible for this had too wide
a mandate to dictate language and went overboard.

The cynical take is that this puts partners into a position where they almost
_certainly_ will violate the guidelines. This is like making jaywalking a
crime. If you make something everyone does a crime, you can selectively
prosecute the people you don't like, so language like this makes it easy to
tell any partner offering services AWS doesn't like they're violating the
rules.

The conversation will go something like this:

(Satire follows.)

Partner: How can we get right with AWS?

Amazon: Well, easy, you just need to stop advertising that you're partners.

Partner: So after we went to the effort of forming an agreement with Amazon
and becoming partners, we can't advertise it? Advertising our services as
partners helps drive new customers our way!

Amazon: Well, that seems like a _you_ problem. It's plain as day, the rules
say you can't advertise yourselves as partners in the AWS Partner Network
brand guidelines.

Partner: What about $other_partners?

Amazon: We can't comment on our relationship with other individuals or
businesses, have a great day!

~~~
dbcurtis
Here is the thing. The word "partner" is legal velcro. Amazon does _not_ want
a judge to determine that you are a PARTNER of Amazon's in the legal sense of
the word. Even calling it the "Amazon Partner Network" is profoundly stupid,
IMHO.

Partner means a different thing in contract litigation than it does in casual
English usage.

~~~
lonelappde
Why don't Microsoft Lawyers know this?

[https://partner.microsoft.com/en-US/](https://partner.microsoft.com/en-US/)

Nor Oracle?

[https://www.oracle.com/partners/index.html](https://www.oracle.com/partners/index.html)

Nor Google? [https://support.google.com/google-
ads/answer/9028757?hl=en](https://support.google.com/google-
ads/answer/9028757?hl=en)

The actual reason is that Amazon doesn't want anyone making a buck of Amazon's
name. They are ruthless about capturing all the value in a relationship.
Amazon does things like require 1+yr free trials of enterprise software and
charging for the privilege of not being under NDA.

~~~
dbcurtis
Guess what! My wife _is_ a lawyer at Oracle. And she knows. And guess what
else? Marketing owns the wording of marketing collateral, and can ignore the
advice of the lawyers, and then the lawyers get to clean up the resulting
problems.

------
jcrites
The article title and contents appear to be intentionally inflammatory: "AWS
forbids partners even mentioning multi-cloud!" Except that's not true. A more
accurate title would be "AWS won't participate in co-branded marketing
campaigns that promote competing clouds".

I'm not an expert on this topic, and have no familiarity with the co-branding
guide beyond having just read it, but it appears to describe the conditions
for AWS and other companies to _work together on a co-branded marketing
campaign_. From the guide:

> Co-branding occurs when AWS and an APN Partner ... agree to work together to
> achieve a shared marketing goal.

I see no restrictions on partners having or advertising multi-cloud solutions
on their own. The guide just says that AWS isn't willing to participate in
marketing campaigns that mention them. Here is the entire relevant section:

> APN Partners should not promote the use of their solutions on other cloud
> platforms _in joint marketing activities_ or in high-visibility assets used
> at our events ... The focus of these assets and campaigns should be on
> customer success with AWS Cloud. If you prefer not to reference AWS
> specifically, you may reference "the cloud" or "your cloud". Booth
> collateral, such as data sheets, flyers, and whitepapers may reference all
> the specific cloud platforms that the APN Partner's solution runs on.
> [emphasis mine]

Thus the article seems to misconstrue the issue, and the truth seems to be
merely that AWS isn't willing to participate in marketing campaigns that
promote competitors.

------
walrus01
That article and this HN thread are much more amusing with the Cloud to Butt
browser extension installed.

------
jlawer
The joys of partnering with the gorilla. Amazon are trying to own the concept
of cloud, at least in the IaaS space.

With the consolidation to the big cloud vendors, the pain the cloud giants put
on their minnow partners are only going to get worse. And I am not sure what
can be done about it.

~~~
hirundo
> And I am not sure what can be done about it.

In this case the answer is clear: when you build a cloud app, take the effort
to make it multi-cloud, so you can bail out when any one cloud gets too
domineering, or just too expensive.

This is the primary reason that I'm reluctant to build on Datomic Ions. They
have made an explicit decision to build it for AWS only.

~~~
jlawer
Sure, But this is about "Partners". Some such as consultants and MSPs. These
organisations are typically providing the strategy to less technically savvy
companies.

Some others are the technology vendors who are producing the tools to provide
higher level cloud management tools. This will limit the ability of these
companies to both be a partner and to have promote multi-cloud tools in their
portfolio.

------
nhance
"Your profit margin is my opportunity."

Good luck making smart friends Amazon.

------
state_less
Isn't this making the point of why folks want a multi-cloud capable solution?

------
Spooky23
That’s life as a vassal. Try asking a Microsoft Gold Partner about Oracle.

------
CobrastanJorji
Meanwhile, at Microsoft and Google events, the corporations trip over their
own tongues trying to say multi-cloud too many times in one sentence.

I suppose the #1 player wants customers not to be told that other players even
exist, and the other players want to talk about the advantages of using the #1
player and ALSO them.

------
houseboat
I like the idea of a single cloud.

The problem I would see is the fact that the service needs to be built as a
whole.

In the past when I used multiple cloud services it was very easy to build a
single cloud solution and the cost of each version would increase.

In the past I used a single cloud provider to build and deploy the entire AWS
ec2-core infrastructure.

It is not too bad for the AWS-core business but I would much rather have a
single cloud service built in than rely on one provider.

------
snowwrestler
I met with a Rackspace rep _today_ who explained how they can support AWS,
Google Cloud, Azure, and of course their own cloud, including several
simultaneously.

Not sure what this article is referring to but it did not seem to be
restricting that particular relationship.

------
haolez
That stance is pretty clear when you take into consideration data egress
costs, which are pretty high and makes cross-cloud deployments usually more
expensive than using the AWS alternatives.

------
pkilgore
Boy, terraform is one of my favorite tools, looks like they are pretty f __ked
from a quick google search of the relevant terms.

------
carlsborg
Well they earned it. The AWS platform is a brilliant feat of system
engineering.

edit: removed non-citable claims

~~~
fooker
citation needed

