AWS growing so fast its revenue makes it bigger than Cisco or HP

Amazon.com has released its Q2 2021 earnings, and revealed that revenue from its cloud business Amazon Web Services has jumped 37 per cent to an annualised rate of $59 billion – a figure that takes it past Cisco's annual revenue and puts it within striking distance of Lenovo. In Thursday's investor earnings call, Chief …

[IHateWearingATie]

Currently working at a client that for various reasons has to run its own server farm rather than use AWS or others for the first time in a while. It's reminded me why AWS and other cloud services are just sooooo much easier than running it yourself.

[Pascal Monett]

Especially when it comes to leaving critical data available to all and sundry in an unsecured bucket.

[Peter-Waterman1]

Get them Pitch Forks out!

Grrrr AWS...

Cloud is never going to take off

AWS is for Startups

AWS is for Dev's

AWS is for Open Source, Azure is for Microsoft Shops

Azure is growing faster than AWS

Retail customers don't want to use AWS

It's not secure

How's that Cloud working out for you

Its someone else's computer

Screw it, we moving to AWS.

[Smartypantz]

Re: Get them Pitch Forks out!

Welcome to the new feudality, serf

[MyffyW]

Re: Get them Pitch Forks out!

Despite using a cloud provider or two in my daily beeswax, I, for one, don't welcome our cloudy overlords.

[Jay 2]

Pros and cons, horses for courses etc

I'm still a bit of a cloud sceptic, but there are most definitely use cases where it's the right thing to do (for now). As long as you design your apps/workflow/CI/whatever to be cloud friendly, put in some redundancy and keep an eye on the budgets then it should be OK.

But there are still instances where on-prem isn't going anywhere, like the exchange-based low-latency trading for example. And there will always be people (who are idiots) who think that doing a lift a shift of current on-prem to cloud will work some sort of miracle somehow but in reality it'll turn out to be a costly mess. Or in other words, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

I'm an old dinosaur so I still think a bit of a hybrid model is a go-er. So on-prem as a sort-of base that can keep on going if the cloud (someone else's computer remember?) goes bang, and cloud for all the scale-up loveliness and potential resiliency. Although were I am is learning the hard way that AWS doesn't always nicely like to fit in with on-prem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes there is a silver lining

Work need to expand some capacity of a system & are looking to lift and shift into new tin while shuffling older systems in the vacated tin so stuff stays in support etc etc.

I for once actually advocated building the capacity anew in the cloud. We already have multiple 10g connections into peering centres etc and wouldn’t be a huge effort to spin up yet another azure/was/gcp/IBM channel & it would alleviate any issues with vendors not having kit.

Surprisingly everyone thought it wasn’t a good idea, would take too long, would be too complicated etc.

6 months later they’ve just found out the kit is on back order and it’ll screw their timelines.

They could have been up and running their system by now and shuffling compute onto the vacated kit.

I’d rather do stuff in-house but there are clear and obvious use cases for cloud that should be taken when an opportunity arises.

[NetBlackOps]

Re: Sometimes there is a silver lining

Especially with greenfield. You can duplicate cloud architecture locally if you know what you are doing, and I've been working with virtual from the 70's. Once it's up and running, then I'd do the ROI for local, hybrid, all cloud.