Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think you may be overestimating the complexity & costs involved. Hyperscalars run millions of machines and have extracted impressive efficiencies from that that you’re not going to be able to compete with by buying and maintaining your own rack. This starts to become clear when you consider how ancient, outdated and expensive servers for hospital systems are.



The hyperscalers are only efficient when compared to typical corporate IT departments, and what they can buy on the open market. For example, some analysts suggest that AWS EC2 has an operating margin of around 30%. If we take what off-brand cloud providers charge (who compete mostly on price) and compare that to the EC2 pricing, AWS must have some tremendous inefficiencies if they only have 30% margins.

Even when considering network bandwidth (where hyperscalers are famously expensive, and orders of magnitude above wholesale pricing), hyperscalers still be might be the cheaper option for larger public companies because of the structural issues they face internally (e.g., the inability to make it official that they are already running an ISP anyway, and start buying much cheaper carrier services from other ISPs).


> The hyperscalers are only efficient when compared to typical corporate IT departments, and what they can buy on the open market

As compared to what? Hypothetical IT departments staffed by the best engineers in the world?

> If we take what off-brand cloud providers charge (who compete mostly on price) and compare that to the EC2 pricing, AWS must have some tremendous inefficiencies if they only have 30% margins.

You're committing the cardinal sin of comparing list price. B2B sales heavily discounts the list price so you don't actually know what large companies are paying for vs what the discount providers would charge. I promise you the discrepancy isn't that wide.

Off-brand providers are usually much closer between list price & B2B pricing because their product offerings are so narrow that they can't offset losses in one with gains in another.

You also have to remember that hyperscalars need to charge a profit to reinvest those profits back into R&D. Corporate IT departments don't do that because it's a cost center. So even if you hired a super duper amazing team and built something that meets the needs today, over time the bean counters at your company cause you to underinvest what you actually needed (or you make a strategic mistake) and now you're having to spend significant resources to make up that shortage. Public cloud scaling is a way to mitigate that cost.

There's also the knock on effect of employee salaries - public cloud means more available (i.e. cheaper) expertise. A privately managed cloud means you have higher salaries if you're competing competently.

I've talked to people who run and run on private clouds (e.g. banks who are regulatory banned from it) and while it's impressive they really struggle to keep up with business needs in ways that you don't with public cloud. Yes, it's cheaper in some aspects & more customizable, but scaling limits have to be actively negotiated constantly - businesses gladly pay extra to not have to have that kind of internal negotiation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: