Hacker News Reader

So the question then is what are those services for?

We used a box of disks to get about 20 terabytes out of Amazon to CMU. It ended up being about 50℅ cheaper (from memory - may be off a bit) because we did not account for any employee costs. Startup, running on fumes, none of us drawing a salary, etc.

"It ended up cheaper because we did not account for employee costs".

You basically just proved my point: things aren't cheaper if you have to factor in employee cost.

Technically, that's a logical fallacy:. A&B->true does not mean !B->false.

But, really, I'm not trying to prove or disprove your point. Just noting that there was a situation for us where disk made sense, and we were satisfied with the outcome. Spending 4 hours of person time to save a thousand dollars was reasonable for us in a way it probably wouldn't be for many real companies, because we had comparatively little money and we're willing to work for peanuts.

(Note that I actually share your bias in this one. I both use GCP for my personal stuff and I'm writing this from a Google cafe. :-)

Many customers want to dual-host their data to not be beholden to a single cloud provider. Or to have redundancy across providers. or to put their data closer to the compute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com