This is always an unfair comparison because for any realistic comparison you need to have two servers on two locations for georedundancy and need to pay for the premises and their physical security, too. For example, you need to pay for security locks with access log and a commercial security company, or you have to pay for co-location in a datacenter.
When you add up all these costs plus the electricity bill, I wager that many cloud providers are on the cheaper side due to the economy of scale. I'd be interested in such a more detailed comparison for various locations / setups vs cloud providers.
What almost never goes into this discussion, however, is the expertise and infrastructure you lose when you put your servers into the cloud. Your own servers and their infrastructure are MOAT that can be sold as various products if needed. In contrast, relying on a cloud provider is mostly an additional dependency.
> you need to have two servers on two locations for georedundancy
You also absolutely need this with EC2 instances, which is what the comparison was about. So no, it's not unfair.
If you're using an AWS service built on top of EC2, Fargate, or anything else, you WILL see the same costs (on top of the extremely expensive Ops engineer you hire to do it, of course).
> need to pay for the premises and their physical security, too [...] plus the electricity bill
...and all of this is included in the Hetzner service.
Once again comments conflating "dedicated server" with "co-location".
AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring.
I am a Hetzner customer for my forthcoming small company in order to keep running costs low, but it's not as if companies using AWS were irrational. You get what you pay for.
> AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "georedundancy" or "physical security" or "electricity".
The point is that the comparison is rubbish because Amazon offers way more than Hetzner. If you compare apples with oranges, you get the result that they're different, and that's the gist of the video we're talking about. I'll spare you a car analogy since I'm sure you understand what I'm saying without one. Companies choose Amazon AWS because having peace of mind and contracting out liability is worth the price. It's not complicated and honestly not worth making a video about. That's all I have to say. Have a good day!
Offering way more doesn't mean it's necessarily worth it. If that 'way more' is not so valuable, then it doesn't matter.
It's a lot like the old Mac comparisons of days old. Well you see, the 5K iMac is actually a good value, because a 5K monitor costs 1500 dollars! Okay... but a 4k monitor doesn't, and it's almost the same thing.
Amazon markets itself as competitive by doing the whole 'you have to compare apples to apples' thing. But do you want the apples? Will you eat them? Any product can make itself seem like a good value when it throws in a bunch of stuff you'll never use.
This is one of the most common sales tactics out there. Go to a car dealership, and they'll talk your ear off about the amazing!!1 dealership addons. Whooaaa dude it's such a good value, look you get an oil change coupon and this stripe painted on your door!! Those other dealerships don't give you that, you gotta factor that in man!
Don't double down and change the tune when you say rubbish.
Don't go around saying that you have to worry about "physical security" or "electricity" just because you didn't buy AWS. You definitely don't have to worry when you use Hetzner.
When you add up all these costs plus the electricity bill, I wager that many cloud providers are on the cheaper side due to the economy of scale. I'd be interested in such a more detailed comparison for various locations / setups vs cloud providers.
What almost never goes into this discussion, however, is the expertise and infrastructure you lose when you put your servers into the cloud. Your own servers and their infrastructure are MOAT that can be sold as various products if needed. In contrast, relying on a cloud provider is mostly an additional dependency.