Paradoxically you are both right. Yes, the situation seems dystopian. Yes, hiring a finops person is a sound advice once your cloud bill gets big enough.

▲

motorest 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Yes, hiring a finops person is a sound advice once your cloud bill gets big enough.

Is it, though? At best someone wearing that hat will explain the bill you're getting. What value do you get from that?

To cut costs, either you microoptimize things, of you redesign systems to shed expenses. The former gets you nothing, the latter is not something a "finops" (whatever that is supposed to mean) brings to the table.

▲

graemep 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

You need to know what to optimise which means you need to know what you are spending on.

I did say it applies IFF and only IFF you choose to use these services, and if you have chosen to use these services you have presumably decided they are good value for money. If not, why are they using AWS.

Of course the complexity and extra cost of managing the billing is something that someone who has chosen to use AWS has already factored in, right?

The alternative is to not use AWS.

	▲	quesera 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> IFF and only IFF If and only if and only if and only if? :) (also, while on the topic, I think a simple "if" covers it here, since the relationship is not bidirectional)
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

mulmen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If the cost of hiring the finops person is less than the savings over operating without one then you hire one, if it isn't then you don't.