> part of it is just to lock people into AWS once they start working with it.

This is some next-level conspiracy theory stuff. What exactly would the alternative have been in 2006? S3 is one of the most commonly implemented object storage APIs around, so if the goal is lock-in, they're really bad at it.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

daveguy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What exactly would the alternative have been in 2006?

Well, WebDAV (Document Authoring and Versioning) had been around for 8 years when AWS decided they needed a custom API. And what service provider wasn't trying to lock you into a service by providing a custom API (especially pre-GPT) when one existed already? Assuming they made the choice for a business benefit doesn't require anything close to a conspiracy theory.

And it worked as a moat until other companies and open source projects started cloning the API. See also: Microsoft.

▲

PunchyHamster 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

WebDAV is ass tho. I don't remember a single positive experience with anything using it.

And still need redundant backend giving it as API

	▲	QuercusMax an hour ago \| parent [-]
		When I was in school, we had a SkunkDAV setup that department secretaries were supposed to use to update websites... supporting that was no fun at all. I'm not sure why it was so painful (was 25 years ago) but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

▲

debugnik 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

WebDAV is kinda bad, and back then it was a big deal that corporate proxies wouldn't forward custom HTTP methods. You could barely trust PUT to work, let alone PROPFIND.