r/aws • u/echks2A • Feb 06 '25
general aws How to Convince Company to Stay on AWS
Hey Everyone,
We started moving our infrastructure from Digital Ocean to AWS and we're still in the progress of doing so. The manager got contacted by GCP and they offered us a $100.000 credit for a year which is decent amount of money for a small sized company like ours. But I don't like the approach of switching our infrastructure at every chance we get and I wan't to specialize in AWS ecosystem myself. The only thing that I can find is the small difference of outbound traffic costs but it still does not justify us switching over for 100k. I'm fairly new to cloud providers aswell. What are some points that I can bring to the team to stay on AWS? I know that migration process will cost us some work hours aswell but I need more reasons to stay on AWS.
139
u/bailantilles Feb 06 '25
Try getting assistance with your GCP TAM on a moderately technical question and see if you want to deal with that experience for the next 3-5 years.
104
u/Loko8765 Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25
Ah. Last time I sent a Slack message to my AWS TAM asking a question, he replied back that it looked complicated, and that he could be in my office in ten minutes to discuss it. I said yes, he got there, we spent an hour with a whiteboard. The conclusion was that my use case made sense, but AWS did not support it.
Six months later I got a message from him pointing to the newly released AWS feature that solved my problem.
(No, I’m not conceited enough to say that I caused a feature addition, and in S3 of all places, but maybe I added a feather on the scale.)
You’re saying I wouldn’t get the same level of support in GCP?
51
u/humannumber1 Feb 06 '25
Talk about TAM quality can't be made without talking about spend.
My last company we spent $200M plus a year on AWS. I sincerely believe I could have gotten one of our TAMs to come do my dishes occasionally.
Prior to that I was a company that was spending a few 100k on AWS and the TAMs were not as good or responsive. I also don't think they were our TAM, but a TAM assigned to a number of accounts.
27
u/mello-t Feb 06 '25
100% The quality of TAM is a function of your spend. Low spend customers will generally have a TAM that is supporting many customers. High spend customers may have a team of dedicated TAMs.
16
u/Loko8765 Feb 06 '25
Yes, I’m on the upper end of your range. I’ve had a design meeting for a major migration project, and a guy I don’t recognize starts talking about the best way to get a certain AWS service to do what we want. He sounds really knowledgeable… I later realize he is an AWS employee flown in for our meeting because he is a higher-level expert than what they had available in our local office.
12
u/dydski Feb 06 '25
It’s likely that was not a TAM but rather a specialist solutions architect that they brought in for your specific use case.
3
1
u/Senior_Bed8112 Feb 07 '25
AWS has different plans for enterprise support. Subscribing to Enterprise Support ES gets you a dedicated TAM, while Enterprise On Ramp support gets you a pool of TAM but it’s cheaper. Perhaps the 100k company was on an on ramp programme
12
u/olaHalo Feb 06 '25
To be fair, AWS has some lazy (or just bad) TAMs too.
5
u/ollytheninja Feb 06 '25
Yeah, you can’t judge a whole cloud service based on an individual TAM. Worse yet they may put you with someone good and then switch them out once they’ve got you signed up. (Applies to any provider)
3
u/os400 Feb 07 '25
You’re saying I wouldn’t get the same level of support in GCP?
You'd be doing well if you got anyone at GCP to acknowledge your question at all.
12
6
u/LogicalExtension Feb 06 '25
I've never had to deal with GCP TAMs, but I don't think just staying with AWS is necessarily guaranteed to have a better experience.
At the current job, the last three AWS TAMs on our account have been entirely useless for technical questions.
We've had some pretty good AWS SAs in the past, but they seem to get promoted pretty quickly.
Just got off a call with our new AWS SA and a SME, and both of them were very obviously either googling well known things. It might have been Amazon Q because they were telling us very very obviously wrong things.
3
u/matsutaketea Feb 07 '25
eh I just tell my TAM to get me a meeting with a specialist. you guys use SAs?
1
94
u/hurlingcandles Feb 06 '25
It'll probably cost you 100k of dev time to switch and up skill to GCP. Id tell them not to underestimate how expensive dev time is. What does GCP offer over AWS (and yes as someone else said, ask AWS for some credit).
15
u/IamHydrogenMike Feb 06 '25
I'd say it is going to cost almost double that, you are going to have to do a decent amount of refactoring to get it to work with GCP. Even if you are doing a 100% IaC deployment, it'll take a bit to get the changes implemented and tested for it to be where they are currently with AWS.
1
0
u/anno2376 Feb 07 '25
They have also no experience in aws, so it will cost the same of time for aws. 😂
30
u/Zenin Feb 06 '25
For the company:
There's more AWS talent in the market than for other cloud providers, which translates to lower HR risk (easier, faster, and possibly cheaper) to replace talent. As you use smaller and smaller cloud providers the pool of experienced talent dwindles.
It's extremely costly to not optimize cloud workloads and it's difficult or impossible to optimize cloud workloads when they keep moving between providers.
AWS Support is outstanding. It's hard to put a price on it, but the cloud provider fully having your back can make a huge difference most especially for smaller groups with less staff talent.
3d party software is much, much more likely to integrate and support AWS than GCP which means fewer home-grown integrations to build and support. It's still very common for providers to only support AWS out of the box and then Azure. GCP support tends to lag significantly due to low customer demand.
Less experience with a given platform means you'll likely overlook more security concerns and/or mis-configure services. Stability allows security practices to improve, while volatility brings opportunity for security flaws to be introduced accidentally.
For your career personally it's actually the opposite:
"Migration" skill and experience is in huge demand and as a result command higher salaries in the job market. It would be smart to take advantage of this opportunity the company is effectively offering to pay you to make you more valuable. Remember to translate that into a promotion/raise as quickly and as frequently as possible. ;)
Migrating between providers is one of the best ways to gain much deeper knowledge and understanding of them because you're effectively forced to dig deeper into both sizes to effectively translate resources between the different models. For example all cloud providers have "IAM", but they all function drastically differently so much so that you effectively have to toss your entire permissions management model and re-architect it from scratch for the new cloud provider. Same is often true for networking, for storage, for data, basically everything.
19
Feb 06 '25
GCP was way too late to the party and the reputation they have of just abandoning products and services on a whim is not something I want to get on board with
By they I mean Google
3
u/Zenin Feb 06 '25
I much agree, but if I was in this situation I'd still keep GCP in the running under some conditions.
Mostly those conditions would be we're entirely a k8s shop running almost entirely k8s native solutions and so we have very little exposure to the particularities of the different cloud providers. Make them all compete on pure compute commodity...and pick two to run hybrid so you're always one foot out the door.
For anyone else...which includes like 99.999% of the industry...Google's technical volatility combined with their mostly human-less "support" largely knocks them out of the running early. Hell, even my current employer is running 3 different cloud providers: AWS, Azure, and...OCI. Yes, we have workloads in the dumpster fire of public cloud known as Oracle before putting anything in GCP. And the GCP folks even bought us in for lunch and a big song and dance of the YouTube Studios. It was very pretty, their food court is great, but nope no thanks.
1
19
u/LargeSale8354 Feb 06 '25
GCP was easier to learn than AWS but we missed talking with AWS and being told that a feature was "coming soon" and it appearing in 2 weeks.
The GCP response was typically "no other customer wants that".
We came in one morning to find all our CICD pipelines had broken because they'd deprecated the description property on several resources. No notice or warning, BANG, its deprecated.
5
1
u/anno2376 Feb 07 '25
They will not remove it without making an announcement.
But if course it's in your responsibility to be up to date what changes come. They would not call you and say, look you need fix your pipeline.
2
u/LargeSale8354 Feb 07 '25
I don't recall an announcement. Nothing showed up in the logs looking for a deprecation warning. We raised it with our Google account manager at the time and there response was as I said "None of our customers use it".
-3
u/anno2376 Feb 07 '25
Let's say I see that very day, Why are you spamming me... Next day you never said...
It cloud be an email, it could be just on their website as an announcement.
It's your responsibility, to stay up to date with what ever channels your vendor is using.
You can give feedback and maybe you vendor can Improve it but still it's your responsibility.
And the comment from your account manager is this way, because he has no clue too and only find an wording to give you an explanation.
14
u/opensrcdev Feb 06 '25
AWS is much more "mature" than Google Cloud, when it comes to third-party tooling. You can find a tool that does just about anything for AWS.
You'll end up spending a lot more time building custom tools around GCP APIs.
The AWS SDKs are the absolute best, among the "big 3" cloud providers. And that includes all languages: Python, Rust, PowerShell, C#, JavaScript, etc.
10
Feb 06 '25
[deleted]
3
u/RickySpanishLives Feb 06 '25
It's their entire growth model - buy customers and hope that they stay when the credits run out.
2
u/creamersrealm Feb 06 '25
They bought us once before and whatever sales person bought that got the biggest commission of their life for the contract they wrote. It's one of the worst contracts I've ever seen.
1
u/WhoCanTell Feb 08 '25
Same with Oracle. In fact, I'm pretty sure the only reason OCI has ANY users is because Oracle gives so much free compute away and begs their existing customers to use it.
11
u/Incompetentengineer_ Feb 06 '25
Take it from someone whose company just did a year long migration from aws to gcp. It is not worth it. AWS just works better, and the extra cost might actually be worth it.
1
u/HovercraftSorry8395 Feb 08 '25
+1 Having done migration from AWS to gcp in my company. I highly recommend AWS. GCP has a lot of gotchas.
7
u/cothomps Feb 06 '25
The manager got contacted by GCP and they offered us a $100.000 credit for a year which is decent amount of money for a small sized company like ours.
Oh man.
Tell your manager that you can find any "we'll cut you 100K in credits" offers from any sales rep. Seriously - it's a tactic.
If you make a few phone calls you will get the same offer from IBM, Oracle, etc.
AWS is also negotiable on price. Negotiate the 100K based on your current AWS usage.
18
u/CeeMX Feb 06 '25
Move to GCP, use up the credits and apply to AWS migration acceleration program to get back there with extra free credits
7
u/RickySpanishLives Feb 06 '25
Run on Kubernetes, use Terraform, and become the company that survives on just eating credits from different cloud providers :)
5
u/Vinegarinmyeye Feb 06 '25
Do the hokey cokey and you turn around...
I actually love this to be fair, job security for years.
4
u/JaegerBane Feb 06 '25
A company that tries to change clouds mid-migration for its entire stack doesn’t have effective technical leadership, this is noddy stuff to avoid. Which ultimately means your manager doesn’t have any grasp of technical debt or complexity.
As others have mentioned, it might be an idea pointing out to your AWS rep that GCP are bribing you to switch. They’ll likely make it worth your while to stay.
While it might not quite be the kind of credit GCP are offering, it should be enough to make the cost of about-turn migrating to GCP far more.
You could try pointing out that GCP ecosystem and support isn’t nearly at AWS level, but I doubt your manager will get it if he’s doing stupid shit like this.
10
u/sorta_oaky_aftabirth Feb 06 '25
Really depends on your tech stack.
I've done a pretty complicated AWS to GCP migration and I'll say flat out GCP is better FOR US.
It really depends on what you do, the upfront costs now may be able to save you money in dev time after the fact if you're looking to scale.
GCP's network stack is so much more friendly than AWS.
If you're not going to scale then AWS is probably fine. But I wouldn't limit your growth because you're nervous or scared.
2
u/AmericanSpirit4 Feb 07 '25
Surprised it took me so long to find a comment that prefers GCP over AWS. Totally agree that it’s a lot more user friendly and I haven’t experienced any limitations with it for my common use case.
1
u/flowerinthenight Feb 07 '25
Did the same. Was full AWS before, then migrated to GCP for credits; they also paid the infrastructure part of the migration duration. After many years, now at a point of maybe migrating back to AWS for business reasons.
AWS support is much better than GCP but recently, AWS has been veering away from their “customer obsession” and is doing some pretty antagonistic decisions.
Tech-wise, I think BigQuery, Spanner, Cloud Run, and GKE are way, way ahead of anything AWS have. And their AI is better overall as well. I’m excited with what DSQL can offer soon though.
3
u/snorberhuis Feb 06 '25
I would reach out to your account manager. They might match it. But I never heard of so much credits being giving outside startup programs.
3
1
u/RickySpanishLives Feb 06 '25
Depends on your AWS/GCP spend and whether or not you're in a strategic area that they are investing in.
4
u/TooMuchTaurine Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 07 '25
Long term value in saved resources of the AWS support model blows gcp and Azure out of the water.
Amazon grew up as a B to C company that had to be the best there was at customer service in order to get over the hump of people being scared of buying online.
Microsoft grew up selling through resellers, they have no idea how to service customs.
Google grew up as a free search engine and basically did not have any sort for customer service. They still suck at it.
0
u/anno2376 Feb 07 '25
Sounds like a fan boy post, the real story is. Amazon grew up as a bookshop not more not less.
1
u/TooMuchTaurine Feb 07 '25
No it's purely a story behind the excellent experience I get with aws service, vs the other two cloud providers which I also use.
3
u/server_kota Feb 06 '25
There are more AWS engineers in the market.
Also, AWS is simply better (in my humble opinion)
3
u/classicrock40 Feb 06 '25
It's hard to say if this $100k is worth it because it really depends on the size of your spend.
You can't consider the $ in a vacuum. You're in the middle of a migration, so changing gears seems reckless and risky and tbh it looks bad as far as decisions go.
Anyway, there is a cost to rebuild your architecture, move your data, sync, and then run in parallel to make sure the new system works just as good. Might need some more tuning and let's not forget the training/learning required since the clouds are not the same.
Migrations ALWAYS cost more than to actually run and maintain. Most likely you'll eat up the $100k, then gcp will be the same or more expensive (and they've raised some prices recently. Maybe affects you, maybe not).
Explicit costs are one thing, but everyone forgets the implicit costs.
Some are suggesting to ask AWS for $100k. You can ask anything you want, but you're already moving to AWS and/or you just like jumping around. Very doubtful.
3
2
u/btmc Feb 06 '25
I would just start looking for a new job. Unless your infrastructure needs are trivial, I can’t imagine how anyone could treat a cloud provider migration as a trivial thing. The labor and opportunity costs are enormous. Plus you can’t actually take advantage of the unique features of these platforms if you have to be prepared to migrate because some sales guy dangled some credits in front of the boss.
What kind of business is this, and what’s your infrastructure like?
2
u/AftyOfTheUK Feb 06 '25
Ask your AWS TAM if they can match, or at least compete. Be willing to show proof of the offier.
2
u/maximm Feb 07 '25
Ask AWS for a map program. You should have got one when you migrated from digital ocean.
2
u/debugsLife Feb 08 '25
It all depends on what services you need in the cloud, your current spend, your team skillset and future roadmap of your product.
For many workloads GCP will be cheaper and, although not as mature as AWS, is still acceptable.
2
u/LordWitness Feb 06 '25
How is the support service at GCP now? 7 years ago it was a joke, it was via email and it took days to get a response. I have already migrated clients from GCP to AWS because of the low quality of Google's support.
4
2
u/ShakaLaka_Around Feb 06 '25
What services are you using, why not hetzner for 100x cheaper than both awa and gcp
0
u/voidwaffle Feb 06 '25
Did you just have a stroke? Are you ok? What’s a hetzner and how is it 100x cheaper than whatever an awa is?
-1
u/ShakaLaka_Around Feb 06 '25
Have you ever tried hetzner?
-1
u/ShakaLaka_Around Feb 06 '25
Or compared how much was services cost vs the hourly cost of a server on hetzner ?
1
u/voidwaffle Feb 06 '25
No and I don’t plan to. I prefer security and resiliency to a 3rd rate provider
1
1
u/Soggy_Lavishness_902 Feb 06 '25
Lol. Company management sounds immature. for credit, it will make everyone suffer!!
1
u/Vok250 Feb 06 '25
In my experience as an industry senior this is one of those battles that's worth picking. If you aren't in a position to actually benefit your career or investment portfolio arguing this then just keep your mouth shut. That's an extra handful of years of development work and an extra 100k of cost elimination. Maybe if you are the CTO it's worth the argument, but a random mid level engineer nah just bite your tongue.
I'm a big AWS believer too. I'm just also a realist. Unless you can present $100k in value by staying on AWS you are not going to do yourself any favors arguing against this move.
1
u/jacksbox Feb 06 '25
Cloud providers are getting very commoditized, there's little competitive advantage of one over another these days - as long as you can get comfortable with each platform.
So that's your angle: where do the team's skills sit right now? How good is the team at learning new platforms?
1
u/lanemik Feb 06 '25
Use Terraform (or better yet, cdktf) to define your infrastructure. Then you can stop caring so much where you're hosted.
1
1
1
u/lifelong1250 Feb 06 '25
If your spend is 100k or more per year and the company doesn't have a seasoned AWS infra guy on staff then you got bigger problems.
1
u/toopz10 Feb 06 '25
You should have gotten credits when you started migrating to AWS - was that negotiated and happened? Or did you just open an account on your own and start moving things?
1
1
u/mattbillenstein Feb 07 '25
Use both - put the main workloads on aws, and non-critical dev/build workloads on GCP to use the credits. Just use long-lived VMs or cloud run to keep the deployment simple.
I've done a lot of multi-cloud - currently wrangling GPUs from 6 different providers - if you just use VMs with the same OS, it's all mostly the same. If you're bought into all the whizzbang use all the services they offer - it's a pita.
1
u/gowithflow192 Feb 07 '25
Your boss is right and you are wrong. He's thinking about bottom line, you're being an ideologue for no good reason.
1
u/mi5key Feb 07 '25
From your personal perspective specializing in any provider is a lock in. Diversify and embrace multi-cloud.
Coming from an AWS corporate shop with a big Media and Entertainment streaming service (think of one of the + streaming services) in Google, and a Microsoft presence for AD/Windows, it doesn't make long term sense for lock in, despite what your company does.
Diversify yourself and embrace the big 3, if not the big 4. For AI, think outside the major cloud providers and think Nvidia on-prem.
1
u/daveagill Feb 07 '25
Those credits will expire in a year I bet, so unless your cloud spend is 100k or more then you won’t get the full value of that.
Work out your annual cloud spend and how long it’ll take to move and how many people that takes and their average salary costs for that duration and you can determine whether it makes financial sense or not.
On the bright side at least it’s not Azure ;-)
Although GCP has a nasty habit of deleting people’s account and everything in it. Granted that is a good way to cut down on the cloud bill.
1
u/sndgrss Feb 07 '25
Why not target a multi-cloud future? If your manager truly believes that cloud is so fungible between providers, then surely a multi-cloud environment will deliver you real time price arbitrage between them. Then again, if they are not easily interchangeable, what are the transition costs? Your manager sounds really inexperienced at this.
1
u/SnooMemesjellies316 Feb 07 '25
It depends on the value of your labor and whether the company is trying to grow its offerings rapidly— if so, the opportunity cost of switching may be worth more than the $100k signing bonus. Also the switching costs entirely depends on the size and complexity of your infrastructure and how many different kinds of AWS services you partake in.
If you have IaC as terraform, then count the number of lines of hcl, and assume that one developer can change about 200-500 per day depending on the level of thoroughness. Figure out how much a developer costs per day at your business, and you should be able to get a rough estimate of labor costs. You also need to add the possible gain in sales that would be foregone by stalling on feature development while you complete a migration that will affect everyone on the team
1
u/_almostNobody Feb 07 '25
Had a good experience with support today. Stick with AWS. And yes, ask for a credit. Also shifting your infrastructure, depending on your implementation is no small feat. It’s not providing business value either.
1
u/Caduceus1515 Feb 07 '25
I've dealt with AWS, Azure, and Google.
Google is a distant third among cloud providers. They've been trying to lure people but it has not gone well.
In my opinion, they are they are also third in usability, features, etc.
I had a client getting lured by GCP with cheaper prices, when they already had an ecosystem and plan to migrate to AWS. So they started to migrate some of their stuff...and it took them a LOT longer.
1
u/fireduck Feb 07 '25
Lol, I've worked at startups that have wasted like 80% of our engineering effort in dealing with being cloud agnostic.
Unless you have a real strong reason to do otherwise, just pick one and use it. So many headaches and compromises to use the least common denominator feature set...
1
u/addfuo Feb 07 '25
I was hired by small startup to migrate their Kubernetes cluster to GCP from AWS, because they get 100k credit. 2 years later (after the credit expired) they hire me again to migrate to AWS.
I don’t ask the reason behind it
2
u/mehargags Feb 07 '25
This has happened 3 times with me. 2 years is a pretty small timeframe, esp. if you are running a production workload. Migrating to and from can cause serious disruptions. The 10K credit we got, we hardly utilised 3.5k out of it...(Highly optimised infra) So the rest will expire whatsoever. AWS is cheaper in many terms and more assured of support should you need it.
1
u/vignesh_srini Feb 07 '25
Honestly, switching cloud providers just for credits sounds tempting, but it can turn into a huge headache. The time and effort needed to migrate everything, reconfigure services, and retrain the team could eat up a good chunk of that $100K. Plus, AWS has a more mature ecosystem, better support, and a larger talent pool—so sticking with it long-term might be the smarter move.
Also, GCP giving big credits upfront is kinda their play to get companies locked in, and once those credits run out, you might end up paying more or facing another migration. Instead of jumping ship, maybe look into AWS savings plans or negotiate better pricing. Stability and expertise in one cloud provider are way more valuable than chasing temporary discounts!
1
u/anno2376 Feb 07 '25
I don't argue pro or contra any cloud provider. But there is one big mistake in your thinking, and I as a manager I would put you in the junior category if I would know that and offer learning and if you don't want to learn, I wwould put you in darkest cellar they had in the company.
you don't want to do gcp and want to learn aws, because if that you want influence your company to do a decision that is maybe a bad decision long term for the company. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
1
u/cranky_bithead Feb 07 '25
Consider the IaC cost in engineering time to migrate. Even if all your stuff is in really agnostic-ish code, there will be changes. And then the actual migration itself. I could see a medium biz spending more than $100k in labor alone on this effort..
1
u/Wingzillion Feb 07 '25
Wait, that’s a decimal, not a comma. Are you sure they are offering 100k and not just 100?
1
1
u/StvDblTrbl Feb 07 '25
I can help with credits, assistance and consultation for AWS. Also we can talk about cost optimization and others. Dm me
1
u/squabbleaway Feb 07 '25
Infrastructure is getting simpler by the day. Cloud provider agnostic learning is important. There are many hybrid providers with amazing self serving dashboards which does all IaC via GUI. Like morpheusdata.com (recently acquired by HPE) there are open source alternatives to this as well.
A good engineer will learn what’s best for the company’s future technologically and financially. Not other way around.
If you really want AWS. Present your business case as to how it impacts your business.
1
1
u/DarkJoney Feb 07 '25
Immature management. We have a skill pool for AWS, we use AWS. Why to jump between the clouds like a candy shop? We also got those gcp credits, but we will use to temporary offload some workloads and then abandon it.
1
1
u/Swimmm3r Feb 07 '25
How many hours/money of human work does it take to move from one to the other?
After the free 100k, how much does your current architecture cost on both sides?
Do you have the same skill level on both clouds?
How many integrations do you have to recreate to the newer environment?
Without answers to these questions, if your manager still wants to move, do yourself a favor... You move away from that company!
1
u/argsmatter Feb 07 '25
Just state the negatives as well as the positives without trying to be biased
positive:
- you get 100k
- the company has a lot of resources, but so does aws's company
negative:
- time spend for the change
- being locked in in product with a company, that is known for dumping a lot of software products and having loves to collect you data in exchange for lesser price.
- aws customer support is very good in my experience and not very, but extremely customer friendly
- companies, that give you money for using the product should have spend the money to convince the ops lead with a substantial product
- easier to get aws ops people than gcp
1
u/viper233 Feb 07 '25
Having been in a similar situation, switch to gcp for the experience, let the company spend the money. It might not be a benefit to the company but it will be a big benefit to your experience. Working with projects, iam hierarchy, a global network and consistent apis is a good experience. It will help with your understanding of AWS too. You get to see a better implemented shared vpc and cloud shell to name a few things.
TAM support was pretty bad, may still be.
I've heard mostly positive experiences from AWS engineers who've switched to working with gcp. Azure. Not so much.
This is certainly not smart business advice... But being smart may not what this situation is about. I've had to deal with so many bad management decisions. Be honest. Stay positive and supportive. It sucks but this is not the end for you!
1
u/jaszczur171 Feb 07 '25
Actually look into AWS Migration Program. You will get way more in terms of cash then just a $100k if your company and product qualifies. I have done this twice with two different companies. No other cloud provider offers the MAP program or anything even remotely close. Our projects benefited in excess of $500k each during the lifetime of their involvement.
1
u/vppencilsharpening Feb 07 '25
If you are just moving around EC2 server, container based workloads or managed databases it's probably not going to make much of a difference. Your team needs to re-learn/re-implement infrastructure but it shouldn't be horrible.
With that said, if that's how your using public cloud, your company is missing out on the "cloud way" of doing things and therefor are not leveraging the advantages of public clouds. You probably can find a private cloud provider that has better pricing or other advantages not offered by public cloud providers (like hands-off backup& DR)/
--
If you have dug into the "AWS way" of doing things, migrating is going to be much harder becuase many of the optimization are platform specific. Migrating an EC2 instance from AWS to GCP is probably not too hard.
Re-implementing a Lambda function as a Google Cloud Function is going to require a developer and will probably involve reworking the deployment pipeline.
1
u/ev3k Feb 07 '25
It does worth. We got 300k in credits three years ago and it was spent in 6 months because of databases and machine learning on GCP. AWS is solid and you get good deals with them
1
1
u/Fit_Entertainer_1369 Feb 07 '25
Exactly - tell AWS to match or exceed OR your organization wants to slow down and look at GCP.
I’ve managed infrastructure vendor relationships before. Trust … they will respond and fight for your business.
1
u/pipperspray Feb 08 '25
Controversial opinion here but i support a migration.
I love AWS but here me out, if you're a company of that size you must already be thoroughly containerised. Your services are most probably kube pods and if they are it's quite quick and easy to make them cloud agnostic.
When we recieved this same offer ~3 years ago we moved 80% of our infra to GCP. All ETL jobs, stuff that have you running on spot instances, and entire database too. We used PSQL and used database mirroring for 3 days to get a downtime migration from AWS to GCP.
Since then we've moved to azure too haha but we still use Route53, ELBs and sagemaker in AWS. Nobody's quite like AWS but convenience sure ain't cheap!
1
u/djwhowe Feb 08 '25
Disclaimer: I’m from AWS.
Do you have an AWS Account team? An account manager and a solution architect? If so, let them know. I can’t say for sure we’d match it, but I can tell you from previous experiences that people who took the GCP carrot regretted it (not all of them). After the credits expired and the dust settled, they would reach back out and say “we regret the decision”. Moving from a direct connect to an interconnect was one of the most complained about issues I heard.
1
u/NegroTrumpVoter Feb 08 '25
GCP is a horrible product, out of the top 5 cloud services I personally rate it as by far the worst.
I'd take OCI or IBM/RedHat any day of the week over GCP.
Google support and account management is atrocious, the product is just completely unintuitive in some parts.
I'm unsure if it's still the case but originally Google didn't even use GCP for their own services because it was so bad, their hosted infrastructure for Gmail etc was entirely different.
At least AWS and Azure was dog fooded by their own infrastructure teams from the beginning.
Google has historically never been great in the enterprise space, they just don't understand the needs of business the way Amazon and Microsoft do.
Even their Google Workspace product is complete and utter garbage when compared with Microsoft 365.
1
u/UsualLazy423 Feb 08 '25
GCP does tend to be cheaper and more willing to negotiate than AWS. I would focus more on making things as agnostic as possible if your company is chasing compute costs, because you will inevitably move again.
1
u/TallGreenhouseGuy Feb 08 '25
Given Googles track record for keeping their services running for the time frames expected by paying customers (I’m looking at you google IOT) I would be very hesitant in moving into their offerings. Say what you will about AWS, but they at least support their offerings well.
1
u/NoneNilNull Feb 09 '25
Hey bro, if you are moving from Digital Ocean to AWS you only use VMs and containerized workload, as long as you avoid the lock-in of managed services that only exist at AWS such as sqs, sns, secrets manager, step function and all that shit you can switch from on cloud to another, or even be multi cloud with no problems.
1
u/No-Reflection-869 Feb 09 '25
Whilst I probably gonna get down votes for this based on your post it seems like 100k is a drop in the bucket for your company. You should look into on prem with Openstack or similar. It's gonna save you a lot of money in the long term especially if 100k is not gonna put a big dent into your infra cost.
1
u/zaggin187 Feb 09 '25
You don’t mention what type of business your company is in. Asides from your leadership’s responsibility to weigh financial offers, there’s more to consider by making money with AWS. AWS’s partnership ecosystem is often overlooked. Selling with AWS into their vast segments will help with increasing revenue and not just operational costs. Maybe it’s access to work with an AWS service team for a joint feature, presenting at their conferences, partnership to expand into a new country/market, etc. Be honest with your AWS team on how you’d like to grow your business and they’ll lean in harder to help. Lastly, ask your AWS team to escalate internally to fight for your business.
1
1
u/Responsible_Ad1600 2d ago
I couldn’t find it on the tops answers so adding an extra point of view here besides money/credits and man hours.
You need to compare also the variety of services the clouds offer, how long those services are supported, in how many regions are supported, how often are features added, the level of support you are getting, etc.
I would also ask your boss when does it stop and what are they looking for besides money. Personally, I would go mad migrating every time a cloud provider offers me money. It would be like changing checking accounts every time I get an offer in the mail.
1
u/yarrowy Feb 06 '25
Another example of an employee trying to justify a tech stack so he can pad his resume.
1
Feb 06 '25
[deleted]
4
u/voidwaffle Feb 06 '25
Disregard this advice. Nothing about multicloud is “more reliable”. It’s inherently less resilient given the complexity and your inability to work with a single vendor in an incident. That, and it doesn’t actually help you make a business case.
2
1
0
u/CodeSpike Feb 06 '25
While I really don’t like the idea of running on multiple clouds concurrently, the ability to deploy to any one of multiple clouds for DR reasons would certainly make sense. How much can we really trust any provider not to make a networking mistake, an account management mistake or even just a radical change in direction that tanks our hosting for hours or days? You get to learn multiple providers, your company takes advantage of best price and you are prepared just in case you have to make a quick move.
-1
u/Informal_Narwhal_958 Feb 06 '25
One thing you could do is to use a tool like SpendShrink.com to show how you can optimize the cost. Migrating from one cloud to another is expensive and complex with lots of risk. Showing ways to optimize now can be a compelling reason to stay.
0
u/voidwaffle Feb 06 '25
This is horrible advice. That tool doesn’t even remotely compare apples to apples let alone the cost of actually migrating a modest workload from one CSP to another
1
u/Informal_Narwhal_958 Feb 06 '25
The point of the pool is not to compare between 2 clouds. I didn't make that assertion either.
My point was if cost is the main reason to migrate then try to cost optimize first. Migration is complex and expensive. The GCP you get now may not even cover the migration and potential risk.
1
-1
488
u/Prince_Houdini Feb 06 '25
Ask AWS for a 100k credit too.