back to article In 2006, Amazon debuted EC2. 15 years on, HashiCorp says firms blowing their cloud budgets is all part of the fun

Fifteen years ago, Amazon rolled out the public beta of its Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2), ushering in a new era of cloud computing ... and overspending on clouds of every flavour, according to a Hashicorp report. EC2 was a relatively simple concept. Applications ran on a virtual CPU, "the equivalent of a 1.7 GHz Xeon processor …

  1. chris street

    Amazon rolled out the **pubic** beta - I think you may want to proofread the article again...... just saying.... or fix the sticky L key

    1. Greybearded old scrote Silver badge

      Either gender fits here

      OTOH, they are frequently claimed to be a bunch of...

    2. b0llchit Silver badge

      With the amount of money they suck down, well, it may be the correct term that started the whole thing.

      1. spireite Silver badge

        To be honest, most companies are now trying to pare their cloud spend to the bone

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "spare a thought for the bean-counters"

    Why ?

    They don't deal with anything. They just jot the numbers down and call the head of the appropriate department to tell him that his budget is gone and he needs to find more money.

    They're not the ones who have to correct the situation.

    1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

      Re: "spare a thought for the bean-counters"

      and call the head of the appropriate department to tell him that his budget is gone and he needs to find more money.

      But what if you are in the middle of a packet of cookies and you have to make the call?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "They're not the ones who have to correct the situation."

      Right, they can only make it worse...

  4. Paul Garrish


    So companies, who've frequently gone for the cloud because they couldn't forecast what they needed on their own hardware, have used more than they intended....

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Amazon Cloud Services are like 'Hotel California'

    in that, once you are in, you can never leave unless you die.

    Azure and other ones are almost as bad.

    They have your business by the short and curlies. I wonder why this has not become a verifiable business risk? What is the 'Plan B' for companies that are locked inside?

    1. Alpharious

      Re: Amazon Cloud Services are like 'Hotel California'

      Well you see, if the parasite kills the host, then the parasite dies. Cloud service providers know this, so they make sure not to charge too much. They want to kill off the smaller companies, but keep the whales alive. I bet a coke, a Mexican coke made of real sugar because it's the Lexus of coke, that the managers of the cloud services use their sales metrics to determine which companies to invest in, so they have some fat portfolios of tech stocks that they know are doing well.

    2. matjaggard

      Re: Amazon Cloud Services are like 'Hotel California'

      What complete nonsense, it's perfectly possible to use a cloud service for hosting and not be locked in. The higher you go up the stack the harder it is but as a small company we've successfully moved databases and compute between clouds for better prices and/or performance. Much to my chagrin it was TO AWS not away.

      1. Yoshi

        Re: Amazon Cloud Services are like 'Hotel California'

        Not complete nonsense unless you're willing to architect for true multi-cloud and therefore only use the services that are common. Then do a lot of the heavy lifting in running apps and services yourself

        Do I use the CSPs k8s offering or run my OpenShift? In one scenario I can move freely to other clouds but I'm carrying the effort to run, manage, patch, support OpenShift

        For me, I want to make as much of running the service AWS's problem but accept lock in as a consequence

  6. Duncan Macdonald

    Most uses of "The Cloud" should not happen

    As I have stated before :-

    Given the costs of cloud services vs the cost of own hardware there are only a few cases where use of the cloud is a good idea

    For almost all sustained workloads it is cheaper to use your own kit rather than rent services from a cloud provider.

    Good reasons for using the cloud

    1) Short term peak (under 3 months)

    2) Insufficient internet bandwidth at own premises

    3) Keeping development and testing well away from production

    4) Temporary substitute for unavailable systems (eg after a fire)

    Reasons for NOT using a cloud

    1) Cost - in under 3 years (under 1 year in many cases) running the job on own hardware will be cheaper than the cloud price

    2) Legal constraints - any company in the EU that allows personal data to be on a cloud controlled by US firms is in danger of massive fines due to the EU GDPR and the US CLOUD act.

    3) Data security - if the access to the cloud application is not set correctly then massive data breaches are all too easy - this again raises the potential of nasty fines to companies that trade in the EU due to GDPR. Data breaches on own kit behind a firewall are usually due to an attack (rather than the stupidity that has left so many Amazon storage buckets with world access).

    4) Lock in to one cloud supplier. It is far too easy to embed implicit assumptions about the available facilities into applications resulting (for example) in an application that works on AWS but needs extensive rework to run on Azure.

    PLEASE before committing a job to "the cloud" price the costs of own kit vs cloud kit over the expected timeframe. Include the costs of 2,3,and 4 above in the analysis before committing to the cloud.

    Icon for directors looking at the unexpected drop in profits due to cloud costs ===>

  7. dan l moore

    Depends on cost value of the specific context

    Last post made some great comments about cons of cloud for pricing and article states cloud as convenient, but from my experience it's a little more complex in most cases.

    I mean really the assumption here is ths is just a cost centre - which maybe we have the bean counters to partially thank for :) - but really "convenient" is, to whatever extent, the ability to change, move faster, take opportunities or (or reduce opportunity cost)... potentially do the right thing or actually reduce hardware costs.... I mean actually at some level just to compete with other companies with the same level of convenience... the old world really used to be about lead times as constraints for me....

    Basically mainly it doesn't matter if your IT is half the price if your competitors are leveraging the cloud to do everything quicker.

    Having said that, it's all about context and potential responsiveness is not the same as actually effectively changing rapidly... Nor does on premise mean lack of responsiveness with a highly performing infrastructure department.

    Personally I've seen a lot of uncontrolled cloud spending and lack of actively managing those costs (or the complexities of systems that drive those costs). Imho it mostly comes down to how effectively / quickly you can and do change your systems for the most important things - be that new systems, scaling for load or reducing costs through optimisation, d commissioning or replatforming.

    You may think this is bollocks but it's just what i believe from my experience... I'd probably agree with you on the specifics of your experience...

    Yes, I'm a dev, don't hate me :)

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The big danger with the cloud

    Problem is it's too damn easy to use resources a business doesn't need.

    Amazon themselves tout it as a way to avoid the usual acquisition approval processes to acquire computing resources, replacing it with an on-demand system

    "Trade Capital expense for variable expense".

    Dropbox moved away from AWS as they say it's cheaper for them to run their own datacentre's :

    At the end of the day there is nothing magical about the cloud, as is said it's just "somebody else's computers", it's good for some businesses, especially start-ups that may need to expand (or contract) quickly, but it's not ideal for everyone

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like