I'd guess that if your org is big enough to have 250 engineers in its payroll, AWS services are a waste of cash given you can deploy better and cheaper. For example, Hetzner has less than 200 employees, and it's a global cloud provider.
Enterprises provided many of the things inside AWS but much, much worse.
I actually think the political revolution it (cloud) triggered was a bigger thing than the technical and engineering changes.
AWS is expensive compared to a machine under your desk but not so much compared to the fully loaded cost of (say) a VMware VM at a bank DC, which includes multi-year enterprise hardware & software commitments to make it go plus staff and admin costs.
The DC model choked off innovation that was not approved "from the top" and severely damaged agility.
All major cloud providers have similar computation pricing. As much as I love Hetzner, they are not a major cloud provider.
The bill is not only astronomically high but it's also unpredictable and uncontrollable. Which added valued do you believe justifies this?
Meanwhile, keep in mind that the likes of Dropbox gave AWS a try but in the end learned from their experience and opted to migrate out after only 5 years.
> There’s a restrictive factor when hiring if you move away from Google Cloud,Azure, and AWS.
I disagree, considering that in AWS you either run vanilla VMs from EC2, or containerized solutions in ECS/EKS. Either way you are already better off using either your local VMs or your company's kubernetes deployment.
If you've got 250 engineers then the AWS is going to be fairly predictable and well monitored.
>Meanwhile, keep in mind that the likes of Dropbox gave AWS a try but in the end learned from their experience and opted to migrate out after only 5 years.
Dropbox is memorable because they migrated off which says what many other companies don't do.
As you can tell by the massive growth of Azure many large enterprise companies definitely see the value despite already have their own datacenters.
This is the very first time I hear anyone describe AWS services as "fairly predictable and well monitored", because there is simply no such thing. There are professional services being sold at a premium whose value proposition is to make sense of AWS billing and reign it in. With AWS, your company simply sets a budget with a significant slack and hope for the best.
> Dropbox is memorable because they migrated off which says what many other companies don't do.
Not true. Dropbox is memorable because it was depicted as a poster child of AWS, which ultimately found out it was not worth it at all. And Dropbox is not alone.
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2016/03/16/movi...
https://www.uscloud.com/blog/3-reasons-33-companies-ditching...