Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Good points. I'd just like to point out that, there are "political redundancy" reasons to diversify to multiple (cloud) providers: you could easily get in a billing dispute with a single vendor - if that means your entire business grinds to a halt, then that puts you in a very weak and vulnerable position.

I don't know if the extra effort of using eg. Google and AWS is worth in order to "stay up when AWS goes down" - but it might be worth it to stay up if/when AWS cuts you off for some reasons (quite possibly due to human error, billing, a take-down notice or other legal dispute etc).

None of that helps if you might accidentally find yourself on the wrong side of the "war on terror" by publishing news - in such a case all your US funds and assets might be frozen, and you would need a non-US presence in order to stay up while sorting out the potential error. But I suppose it's no worse than being subject to other kinds of arbitrary censorship...



The billing redundancy argument would be applicable generally but in the case Netflix on AWS is not something Netflix has to worry about.

Netflix is a marquee AWS customer. The PR damage of Netflix even making noise about leaving AWS would be terrible for the service as it fights for market share against Azure and Google. Netflix will get their way.


Exactly, if Amazon wants to keep AWS as the backbone of large parts of the internet, they need to be able to prove other business considerations don't affect it - if they ever treated Netflix any differently than another marque client they'd torpedo the trust in them from any organisation who think they might compete in the future.




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

Search: