- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
The global backlash against the second Donald Trump administration keeps on growing. Canadians have boycotted US-made products, anti–Elon Musk posters have appeared across London amid widespread Tesla protests, and European officials have drastically increased military spending as US support for Ukraine falters. Dominant US tech services may be the next focus.
There are early signs that some European companies and governments are souring on their use of American cloud services provided by the three so-called hyperscalers. Between them, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) host vast swathes of the Internet and keep thousands of businesses running. However, some organizations appear to be reconsidering their use of these companies’ cloud services—including servers, storage, and databases—citing uncertainties around privacy and data access fears under the Trump administration.
“There’s a huge appetite in Europe to de-risk or decouple the over-dependence on US tech companies, because there is a concern that they could be weaponized against European interests,” says Marietje Schaake, a nonresident fellow at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center and a former decadelong member of the European Parliament.
We use AWS at work, and the “cutting costs” thing seems largely a way to further lock-in customers. They want you to build around their tools so the switching cost is high enough to not be worthwhile. Then again, I don’t work directly with billing (I’m a SWE, not in OPs), but what I’ve seen looks a lot higher than I would’ve guessed.
Idk, maybe it’s reasonable at scale, but it seems to get really expensive really fast.
Yes, vendor lock in is always a concern around AWS. I am of 2 minds about this - the real trade off with on demand resources is cost as AWS has to essentially have hot instances ready for customers, which cost them more to run. So it definitely makes sense to have these billing options that help them save operational overhead and then pass the savings on to their customers.
But it is a fine line. What should be AWS responsibility and what should be the customers? Amazon’s whole deal is trying to step over it it ways that will ultimately be monopolistic. Personally, I am much more concerned with the egress costs, which is their true and much sneakier vendor lock in trap.
To me, the only answer is government regulation. We should treat cloud resources as a utility and regulate it as such to make sure that the large players don’t abuse their monopoly on compute power and servers. Instead, the government’s answer has been to do away with net neutrality, which really only makes them more powerful because they still have a monopoly on the physical resources. This is one of the reasons why I have become self hosted for my own personal technology - but for work there are a lot of benefits to just shutting up and working with a monopoly that at least has to try to drive down costs at some level to prevent regulatory action.
These services only make sense at scale and with large projects that need a ton of planning everyday. AWS will take the little people’s money if they are willing to give it, but they aren’t truly interested in their business.
Absolutely. That’s basically Oracle’a db strategy.
Things like this are why I’ll never use AWS, even if I get to a scale where it makes sense. I value the ability to switch to a different provider or self-host with my own hardware.
Ideally the market is competitive enough that regulation isn’t needed. But maybe that ship has sailed.
I agree with regulations like Net Neutrality, so I guess it would depend on how it’s worded. I’m just worried massive players like AWS would find ways to abuse any regulations we try to make to exclude others.
But yeah, I don’t pitch switching at work, because I’m not in charge of infra or really involved with it at all. I’m a SWE, not a devOPs or IT tech, so if I’m touching anything in Cloudwatch other than looking at logs, something has gone horribly wrong.