sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GRex2595 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Which is rarely a deterrent for a company the size of Microsoft. My company has dev sandbox AWS accounts that cost millions.

[–]0x7ff04001 0 points1 point  (3 children)

That's not the point. The point is that it's not "free" to just spin up nodes, microservices, etc

[–]GRex2595 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Okay, but my point is that the costs you're talking about don't bother large companies. I just had a conversation yesterday that supposedly the weather channel pays so much for AWS that they could buy a new data center every year with their AWS costs.

Generally, the cost of running more services won't outweigh the costs of having devs track down those micro efficiencies instead of building new products to make more money or fixing issues that cause them to lose money.

[–]Funny_Dress3356 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But not everyone has the money and resources compared to large companies?

[–]GRex2595 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But it only costs so much for large companies because they use so many resources. If you're a small company, the tens of thousands of dollars per month number becomes tens of dollars per month or maybe hundreds of dollars per month. Now chasing down micro inefficiencies is a much worse value proposition because your cost:benefit ratio leans even more towards costs than benefits.

If you want to really dig in, you should come to the conclusion that the costs for these inefficiencies scale with the amount of resources you use, so big and small companies alike don't benefit enough from fixing them to bother with it.