Comment by denton-scratch

I don't care much what decisions random businesses make.

It has been my view for a long time that entrusting your infrastructure to the tender mercies of a firm like Amazon is reckless. Here we have a situation where the legal environment has changed; AWS hasn't changed to match; so those companies that chose to rely on a 3rd-party infrastructure provider appear to have made a mistake.

If I had been advising one of those companies, I would have advised them to bring critical infrastructure in-house. But there might have been other options, like using Europe-based infrastructure providers.

I've never been involved with budgets and so on. It's not my concern how much different solutions cost. I just think the principals of companies have a responsibility to avoid third-party risk - which is what you have, if you rely on a third-party for critical company infrastructure.

That's why I was able to persuade my employers to bring their email service in-house. It worked, and the bosses were pleased with the improved service and reliability. We also constructed our own in-house build and deployment train; that worked very nicely too.

Maybe the cost-benefits vary according to the type and size of business. I'm not a researcher, and I only know about the things I've looked into. But my guess is that AWS works well for companies that are after a quick buck (e.g. an IPO).