It is one of the issues with choosing the cloud providers and taking their stack. They are hoping the cost of swapping once bought into their way is too costly to a competitor who can offer similar service cheaper. Lockin used to be considered bad but something changed with cloud providers and ops/developers don't seem to care as much anymore.
Maybe because pricing by, say Amazon, is published on their web site and therefore, the same for everyone ? Whereas before, when you were with one supplier, he could make specific price for you and leverage its position to make you pay more ? dunno...
Right, nobody pays /more/ than the published prices.
And prospective users can look at the published prices, and see that historically they've gone down more than they've gone up (although obviously that trend could reverse).
So people think they're safe from the risk of Amazon quadrupling their bill over night.
Of course, vendor lock-in can have other negative effects, but apparently people aren't worried about them, or at least think AWS is no worse than the alternatives.
Well, if you aren't in the US there is forex risk - Azure certainly increased their prices in the aftermath of the Brexit vote decrease of GDP against the USD.
Our AWS rep is nice and cheery. He'll come into our office twice a year and bring sales engineers to hear about our upcoming projects. There's one lead developer on our team who keeps imagining systems that use half a dozen AWS services for "big data". The AWS dudes always end up talking to him the most and they definitely bait him with various pitches and, of course, feed his ego. Good thing that he's so disorganized and delayed that he never has a chance to waste company money on all that bullshit.
Having negotiated both, AWS is negotiable within a range that is much tighter than the range for enterprise sales of Cisco, EMC, etc gear. (Or AWS has better negotiators, but I've never gotten a call "Hey, Qx is about to end and I need to hit my numbers, so is there anything we can pull forward" from an AWS rep.)
There are some open source implementations of parts of the APIs of cloud providers that might help someone a bit when trying to migrate. For example, Minio [1] [2] implements the AWS S3 v4 API.
We[1] have seen a fair number of requests for managed services as devs claim that "we don't have the time or skills to maintain these open source components" (quoting verbatim from a request on Intercom). I don't think this is about having open source substitutes in all the cases. Personally not a fan of how/where the build vs. buy debate is playing out here.
"we don't have the time or skills to maintain these open source components" translates to "we don't want to install a monitoring solution that restarts a service when it fails, or think about design in regard to component failure".
It's such a poor argument. I was a developer long before AWS appeared and I've used so many open sources packages that were profoundly reliable. In many cases it just takes a daemon restart. And while it's not exciting to set up some of that stuff, it's far more tolerable than writing a CloudFormation template.
