You can use an expensive AWS VM instead of an expensive AWS bare–metal image. Does anyone realise how expensive AWS is, even in the best case?

▲

PunchyHamster 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It is expensive. But the point where it stops being expensive is far above most companies use case. If you're paying less than a developers salary for hosting you most likely won't see all that many benefits from moving.

Renting a server from cheaper hosting providers can be massive savings but you now need to re-invent all of the AWS APIs you use or might use and it's big CAPEX time investment. And any new feature you need, whether that's queue, mail gateway or thousand other APIs need to be deployed and managed first before you can even start testing.

It's less work now than it was before just due to amount of tools there are to automate it but it's still more work that you could be spending on improving your product.

	▲	notyourwork 29 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Agreed. Some threads make the suggestion you replied to and seemingly fail to ignore the reality of business. Not all businesses want to insource all problems.
	▲	re-thc an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> but you now need to re-invent all of the AWS APIs you use or might use and it's big CAPEX time investment Or maybe you just never needed most of these in the first place. People got into this "AWS" mentality like it is the only way to do things. Everything had to be in a queue, event driven etc. I'd argue not using AWS means simplifying things and it'll be less expensive not just in server cost but developer time.