This article is full of horrible bits, and that quote is just the bit that stands out the most.
The link from that quote is to Quora, with only one random guy holding forth with an opinion about Friendster. Not exactly authoritative. But even if it were, the Quora answer is not even close to implying that AJAX had a consequence on server load (it suggests that AJAX makes for better UX).
The link about "friendster is too slow" links to... a story about a change of CEO at Friendster.... with no reference to website performance at all? Wtf?
The "$15 a month" link and the "so easy" link, while they do mention AWS/EC2 IASS, are only peripherally connected to it. They're about caching Wordpress, i.e. automagically converting your dynamic-content webapp into a static-content website, and have nothing to do with elastic scaling or any of the other really interesting aspects of AWS/EC2.
It's weird, because it's like there was a vaguely reasonable (but fluff-weight) article here, that someone pissed all over and ruined.
I generally enjoy the pieces I read at the Atlantic... now I'm having that experience of wondering if any of them had any truth at all to them.
> IaaS cloud computing is not always cheaper than owning your own hardware
Oh really, not always cheaper ? For the same computing power, I observe almost x10 pricing on amazon compared to dedicated server. And still, I compare to rented dedicated servers, not owned (never worked with those, I suppose it's even cheaper).
Selling (because that's what this article is trying to do) aws as a highly scalable platform where one could add resources in a matter of seconds is ok. Implying it can be cheaper than other alternatives is either lying or having no clue.
And remember, everything else you read in The Atlantic (and other publications) includes similar whoppers... just on topics where you won't recognize them.
Is this seriously an article titled "An Amazon Engineer Had a Little Idea That Turned Into a Billion-Dollar Business" that doesn't actually name said engineer?
I will never understand the instinct for writers to attribute everything to a company's CEO. (The article fronts a big picture of Bezos). Nor will I understand certain CEO's not taking the effort to make sure their people get credit. It's possible The Atlantic made no effort to reach out to Amazon on this. But that seems unlikely.
This article is terrible. What is this doing on the frontpage? It's full of technical errors, and the title is pure linkbait. I was expecting the inside story of the birth of EC2, instead of this, the "Amazon engineer" is only mentioned in the title.
I was hoping they will reveal the name of the employee who came up with the idea and give him the credit he deserves. That's what made me click on the link at least.
I spotted the atlantic in my web analytics this morning, turns out their linking to a blog post of mine inside the article.
It seems a shame that an otherwise decent article is spoilt by technical mistakes, when it's incredibly easy to contact almost anyone who they've linked to and ask "We're going to publish this, does it sound reasonably accurate to you?".
Still, at least they don't perpetuate the myth that EC2 was initially selling spare capacity from the main amazon site.
I still fail to understand why AWS is growing. It is slow and expensive. It may be useful, and a lot cheaper if you could plan the AWS with spot price, long term rental, and generally play the AWS game.
[+] [-] wave|13 years ago|reply
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Pinkham
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Van_Biljon
[+] [-] eurleif|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jholman|13 years ago|reply
The link from that quote is to Quora, with only one random guy holding forth with an opinion about Friendster. Not exactly authoritative. But even if it were, the Quora answer is not even close to implying that AJAX had a consequence on server load (it suggests that AJAX makes for better UX).
The link about "friendster is too slow" links to... a story about a change of CEO at Friendster.... with no reference to website performance at all? Wtf?
The "$15 a month" link and the "so easy" link, while they do mention AWS/EC2 IASS, are only peripherally connected to it. They're about caching Wordpress, i.e. automagically converting your dynamic-content webapp into a static-content website, and have nothing to do with elastic scaling or any of the other really interesting aspects of AWS/EC2.
It's weird, because it's like there was a vaguely reasonable (but fluff-weight) article here, that someone pissed all over and ruined.
I generally enjoy the pieces I read at the Atlantic... now I'm having that experience of wondering if any of them had any truth at all to them.
[+] [-] skyo|13 years ago|reply
> On August 24, 2006, the public beta of Amazon's "Infrastructure as a Service" (IaaS).
How is that a sentence?
[+] [-] oelmekki|13 years ago|reply
> IaaS cloud computing is not always cheaper than owning your own hardware
Oh really, not always cheaper ? For the same computing power, I observe almost x10 pricing on amazon compared to dedicated server. And still, I compare to rented dedicated servers, not owned (never worked with those, I suppose it's even cheaper).
Selling (because that's what this article is trying to do) aws as a highly scalable platform where one could add resources in a matter of seconds is ok. Implying it can be cheaper than other alternatives is either lying or having no clue.
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pzaich|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easytiger|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nfm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|13 years ago|reply
How poetic.
[+] [-] adastra|13 years ago|reply
I will never understand the instinct for writers to attribute everything to a company's CEO. (The article fronts a big picture of Bezos). Nor will I understand certain CEO's not taking the effort to make sure their people get credit. It's possible The Atlantic made no effort to reach out to Amazon on this. But that seems unlikely.
[+] [-] mercurial|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jelpern|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sksk|13 years ago|reply
Anyways, if you are curious this link seems to have that answer (Ben Black): http://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-game-changing-cloud-w...
[+] [-] EwanToo|13 years ago|reply
It seems a shame that an otherwise decent article is spoilt by technical mistakes, when it's incredibly easy to contact almost anyone who they've linked to and ask "We're going to publish this, does it sound reasonably accurate to you?".
Still, at least they don't perpetuate the myth that EC2 was initially selling spare capacity from the main amazon site.
[+] [-] ptte|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpiers|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reinhardt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feniv|13 years ago|reply
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/131962-google-compute-eng...
[+] [-] ksec|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ForFreedom|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fosk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iProject|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]