If you have the data with price/performance comparisons, I'd think this is something the rest of us would be interested in.
That is a straw man argument. AWS isn't the only way to efficiently manage infrastructure, and it can be argued it isn't even efficient, full stop.
Again, if you have numbers and not broad statements we'd appreciate them.
eh, no. You have no idea about my areas of expertise, what features I require, or how I map them, or what I map them to, so you cannot make this kind of statement (well, you can, and you did, but it is a fallacy).
you have numbers and not broad statements we'd appreciate them.
I'm sure you do. Doing what I do today in terms of functional parity, but doing it on AWS, will work out roughly 2.5 times more expensive, and will not gain me any additional features or functionality, and will leave me with about two-thirds of reduction in overall performance against metrics that are of interest to me. Also "we"? You speak for others? Who are the "we" that have appointed you as their speaker?
The we should be anybody bothering to read this comment chain - who wouldn't be interested in seeing AWS' lack of value in your use case / competitors that succeed? Having done migrations to and from AWS for past employers, this would definitely interest me in the least.
AWS Internet traffic costs ~60x as much as renting bare metal servers.
No change in architecture can change that fact.