Sure, but I didn't mean to speak to the technical ramifications of the decision to use AWS, rather I was trying to speak to the business ramifications.
That is, AWS has always been a high premium service with the standard story being that you make up for that premium with lower operational costs and more operational sophistication.
But when large (and technically sophisticated) companies like Pinterest and Netflix continue to use it you have to question that story (and to me, especially in Netflix's case as they have the added incentive being a direct competitor to Amazon in their main business).
My current working conspiracy theory is that implicitly or explicitly, the growth of AWS is tied to some sort of regulatory arbitrage and has virtually nothing to do with hardware performance, software resources, or operational sophistication.
That is, AWS allows you to move costs that would have been capital expenditures into other buckets and that is in some way that is obscure to me, very valuable from a business point of view.
That is, AWS has always been a high premium service with the standard story being that you make up for that premium with lower operational costs and more operational sophistication.
But when large (and technically sophisticated) companies like Pinterest and Netflix continue to use it you have to question that story (and to me, especially in Netflix's case as they have the added incentive being a direct competitor to Amazon in their main business).
My current working conspiracy theory is that implicitly or explicitly, the growth of AWS is tied to some sort of regulatory arbitrage and has virtually nothing to do with hardware performance, software resources, or operational sophistication.
That is, AWS allows you to move costs that would have been capital expenditures into other buckets and that is in some way that is obscure to me, very valuable from a business point of view.