> If your AWS costs are too complex for you to understand you need to employ a finops person or AWS specialist to handle it for you.

The point where you get sticker shock from AWS is often significantly lower than the point where you have enough money to hire in either of those roles. AWS is obviously the infrastructure of choice if you plan to scale. The problem is that scaling on expertise isn’t instant and that’s where you’re more likely to make a careless mistake and deploy something relatively costly.

▲

wredcoll 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's a good thing aws saves us so much money that we can afford to hire aws specialists.

▲

graemep 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If you plan to scale to that extent, then why do you not have the money to hire the people who can use AWS? At least part time or as temporary consultants.

This:

> The point where you get sticker shock from AWS is often significantly lower than the point where you have enough money to hire in either of those roles

makes me doubt this:

> AWS is obviously the infrastructure of choice if you plan to scale.

	▲	imtringued 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm wondering what the point of all of this is. If you can afford the large fixed cost of vertical integration, it's always cheaper to do things yourself, so the sweet spot for using providers like AWS is scaling down, not up. A managed DB lets you hire a fraction of a sysadmin or devops person from AWS. The moment you end up paying enough to AWS to hire a sysadmin, you basically are getting an antagonistic sysadmin from AWS, whose primary goal is to make as much money off you as possible. The incentives are not aligned.