"Yes. This is how capitalism works. If there is an inefficiency in the market, there is an opportunity for a competitor to beat you on price or quality. If AWS is not incorporating these efficiencies into their tech, then Microsoft Azure will and beat them by providing either a cheaper or higher quality service."
Not that I'm saying Filecoin or a decentralised storage coin is in any way the way forward or even a competitor.. but saying that is how capitalism works is such rubbish.
In an ideal system you are right, but how often have you worked for a company that is raking in the cash by marketing well and being the "established" hand in the market?
There are so many companies kicking around that are the biggest player in their field that continue to make bank because accountants and upper management decide they are the proven, safe pick in the market and have signed up for long, entrenched software packages.
Also, if this upended the entrenched business model companies were using, they would not be able to quickly switch to it.
There are plenty of ways this could be the a better solution and AWS wouldn't switch to it, saying capitalism proves this is not a good argument.
It is not just AWS. The data storage market is saturated with competitors fighting hard to come out on top. Amazon, Apple, Box, Dropbox, Google, Microsoft are all in this and some of these companies have massive R&D budgets, have a history of delivering cutting edge tech and have strategies to overcome the Innovator's Dilemma (which is the problem you're describing).
It is precisely because these companies are not entrenched that my argument holds. But also consider the technical downside to FileCoin (slow connections to unreliable laptops VS fast connections to redundant data centers) and the economic downsides to FileCoin (it won't be worth hosting due to economies of scale).
Just a minor nit... Apple doesn't really belong on that list. But you're right in general. Cloud storage is a big race to the bottom, and add-ons are going to be what's monetized. I can't see Filecoin or Siacoin having any advantages here.
I don't know how big the Filecoin network is, but it's very telling that they're not sharing this information. I expect that the amount of data stored is not large. Siacoin makes this available but total contracts are currently a bit under 200TB.
For those of you keeping track at home, that's a single medium-size storage appliance.
Again, Filecoin monetizes IPFS. The guy in the same Starbucks as you may have the file you want, so it could be faster to get it from him than from some data center.
Not that I'm saying Filecoin or a decentralised storage coin is in any way the way forward or even a competitor.. but saying that is how capitalism works is such rubbish.
In an ideal system you are right, but how often have you worked for a company that is raking in the cash by marketing well and being the "established" hand in the market?
There are so many companies kicking around that are the biggest player in their field that continue to make bank because accountants and upper management decide they are the proven, safe pick in the market and have signed up for long, entrenched software packages.
Also, if this upended the entrenched business model companies were using, they would not be able to quickly switch to it.
There are plenty of ways this could be the a better solution and AWS wouldn't switch to it, saying capitalism proves this is not a good argument.