I'm struggling to find a way to express my opinion about this video without seeming like a complete ass.

If the author's point was to make a low effort "ha ha AWS sucks" video, well sure: success, I guess.

Nobody outside of AWS sales is going to say AWS is cheaper.

But comparing the lowest end instances, and apparently, using ECS without seeming to understand how they're configuring or using it just makes their points about it being slower kind of useless. Yes you got some instances that were 5-10x slower than Hetzner. On it's own that's not particularly useful.

I thought, going in, that this was going to be along the lines of others I have seen, previously: you can generally get a reasonably beefy machine with a bunch of memory and local SSDs that will come in half or less the cost of a similar spec EC2 instance. That would've been a reasonable path to go. Add on that you don't have issues with noisy neighbors when running a dedicated box, and yeah - something people can learn from.

But this... Yeah. Nah. Sorry

Maybe try again but get some help speccing out the comparison configuration from folks who do have experience in this.

Unfortunately it will cost more to do a proper comparison with mid-range hardware.

For a n older but still relevant comparison, see this: https://jan.rychter.com/enblog/cloud-server-cpu-performance-...

What is the point you are trying to make? Are you saying that we would need to have someone on payroll to have a usable machine? Then why not just have... a SysAdmin?

Shared instances is something even European "cloud" providers can do so why is EC2 so much more expensive and slower?

This comment comes across as someone who is either trying to flog AWS to customers or someone who has to justify a job that depends on AWS.

> "you're holding it wrong" for x10 the price

Ooof. Not a good look.