Amazon AWS Reviews

Customers can use it for the web-based management of the product. We also store and retrieve data for their network connections. Also, we use the AI/ML portion called SageMaker to calibrate the algorithms and basically drive automation into the customer's use case. Typically our use cases are in hotels, public transportation, convention centers - anywhere where you are sharing internet connections. For example, hotels, conventions centers - anything where you might have people jockeying for a shared internet connection with possible oversubscription or network congestion. We also have enterprise Work-From-Home users due to the pandemic and they need to continue to provide access to those remotely into their own data center, corporate network, and public cloud.

Flexible fast way to bring up servers and network infrastructure with variable costs.

We use the AI/ML Sagemaker to help us build models. 

We use several feature services on AWS, including Lambda, S3 database, RDS database, Alexa Voice Services and Cognito Gateway. They are all excellent in terms of offering great functionality.

They're pretty good about taking customer feedback and are generally able to productize the requested feature.

The initial setup is straightforward, especially if using Lightsail to start.

The solution scales very nicely.

The stability is good with a large number of Availability Zones WW.

Technical support is helpful and responsive but you must pay for a tiered support plan to ensure response.

The pricing is something you have to watch. You really have to constantly optimize your costs for instance, storage, IP's and things like that. That can become a job in itself to manage just from a budgeting standpoint if you are a moderate to heavy user. However, that's true for Azure or GCP as well. 

If they did more automation on alerting you to cheaper pricing or automated volume pricing based on time/use or even porting you on to on-demand instances automatically, that would be kind of cool. That's something that I haven't seen yet. They could just automatically optimize for your workflow and put you onto a lower-priced instance to save you money.  you Maybe allow you to pick an economy setting, or a performance setting, by time of day etc. something like that. That would be great. Then you don't have to think about it as much as you do in the current iteration.

It would be interesting to have a cost optimized accounting service so that they would come in and help remediate and give suggestions on how to cut costs. I know it's probably antithetical to their bottom line, but that said, obviously, if you take the high road there, you're going to probably keep people, and keep people from switching for lower costs. A lot of times, they can architect a better solution or a similar solution for lower cost and that would lead to customer retention--or maybe a longer term retention discount if youve stayed with them for awhile. That would be helpful if they had that. They have solutions architects, to consult however, they're usually just trying to design the best technical solution as opposed to the most cost-optimized solution. 

We've been using the solution for about four years at this point.

Services are pretty good stability-wise. They've got great redundancy. The one thing I would tweak them is when you're within the region or zone, they make it more difficult for you to do redundant zones, without carrying the IP addresses over seamlessly. That is a little bit of a sticking point, so you could have remote redundancy with the addressing there with it even outside of the AZ's. That would be a lot easier than having to go through the programming of it. 

The scalability is great. You can go from one small instance to GPU, very powerful instances, clusters. There is not any problem with scaling if you can afford it. If you've got the volume, you certainly can scale.

We have maybe a dozen or so customers that will use the product and then access the UI and the management system through the cloud. Then, of course, as developers, we have about 10 to 25 employees that have to use it to varying degrees to support the customers and do development.

I like the tech support. It varies by level in that you've got to pay more to get the immediate response time. Generally, I'd say it's pretty good. Literally phone rings minutes after you log a trouble ticket. They're usually pretty good about escalations and helping. Out of AWS, Azure, and GCP, I'd give them the number two ranking. Azure has good support, however, it's expensive. GCP probably is number three I'd say, of the top three.

We also occasionally use the Google Cloud Platform and Azure, although we tend to use AWS the most. GCP is a little bit cheaper overall, however, then you've got the cost of management that is typically a person so you do need to invest in that. 

We started with Amazon and we've pretty much stayed with them. We've switched to Google and done some work on Azure that was customer driven, however, pretty much our prime public cloud has been AWS.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It's pretty straightforward. 

It's pretty easy to get started. However, you do have to make an investment and learn the different cloud platform's nomenclature. Most of our guys now are cloud practitioners and architects now that they've taken the training. We had to bite the bullet even though we've been users for four years. There is an investment that you have to make on the OPEX side. That's the case for any of the public clouds. Although once you know one, you can pretty much pick up the other ones pretty quickly.

In-house

Have to watch price/billing creep, but there are tools to watch and monitor your usage and billing.  

Azure. GCP

We're a software development group building specialty LAN/WAN optimization solutions, so we don't use a lot of canned products per se.

We do tend to sue reasonably new software versions of the OS...whatever is the latest LTS selections.

If you already have your workload ready, that's helpful, as you can actually trial it under a free tier and then see what the cost is, and extrapolate what the ongoing cost is. In the end, that's what gets you. Being able to do some benchmark testing on how much it's going to cost for your particular workflow across the three public clouds is definitely something you probably want to do. Especially if you're going to scale, as, obviously, it can suddenly creep up to not just tens or hundreds of dollars a month, but thousands a month, depending upon what you're doing. I definitely would recommend doing some reference testing of your workflows before deciding on a solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. They're pretty solid. You've got all the services that you can imagine, and then some. There's a very broad breadth of products and services. We haven't had too many SLA issues for recovery or downtime. Maybe we've just been lucky or good so far...

We have just started to use this solution. We are using it for Amazon S3 Bucket.

The storage is most valuable. The gateway and documentation are also quite good.

Its price should be lower. The price for in-house usage should be different from production usage.

I have been using Amazon AWS for around a month.

I didn't use any other solution previously.

It was easy to install.

Its price should be lower. Currently, the price is the same if you are working in-house or in production. If you have to do internal testing or you are checking if things are working in-house, you need to pay for that, and the price is the same. The price for in-house usage should be different from production usage.

It is a good solution. I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for everything. It's our infrastructure. You can have long-term or short-term storage. You can have elastic servers, analytical AI, machine learning services, and API services.

It's a flexible solution.

The interface is relatively complex. It's not complex when you compare it to Azure, but with some other competitors, it is a little complex.

The interface could be simplified. It's an area that needs improvement, as well as the price.

I have been using this solution for five years.

We are using the latest version. It's always kept up-to-date by Amazon.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. Everyone in our organization is using this solution. We have 100 users.

We are not sure if we are going to continue using this product. We may move to Azure or GCP. We haven't made that decision.

You have support but not very much. It's all do-it-yourself and you figure it out for the most part.

You have outside consulting firms that provide the support. 

We use Azure, just for backups.

There is nothing to install, it's cloud. It's easy.

The prices are a bit high. But they are the first ones on the market to really do this and they have a monopoly on it.

Depending on what you get, you will have to pay for a license. For example, if you get SQL Server, which is a Microsoft product, you need to pay for a license. If you get other products, you may have to get a license. They will provide that or they will sell it to you.

In some instances, it may be, that you bring your own licenses.

Azure has better services for some aspects, and Google GCP has obviously got some competing products. I think each provider has its benefits, advantages, and disadvantages.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We have applications that are running on the PaaS platforms.

In the healthcare environment, we use Amazon AWS to run healthcare and hospitalization applications.

The end-user is largely unaware of how the backend works, so some of the services are provided by Amazon. So, where we are, some of the applications have been running since the beginning, and we have been using them. And some of the services are required by the packages we are running, so they use Amazon PaaS as a service.

In general, Amazon's performance is good.

When I try to enter the multi-cloud, they provide very poor support. Support is a concern with Amazon.

I have been using Amazon AWS for a few years.

Amazon AWS is a stable solution, it is far more stable than some others.

Amazon AWS is scalable, depending on the platforms and services that are used.

In our company, we have 50,000 employees who use this solution.

We intend to increase our users based on how the new releases go, and if the economics work out better than Google and Microsoft, we will definitely look to Amazon because Amazon can be extremely competitive at times.

It should be faster. Unlike Google's and Microsoft's support, Amazon's support should be faster.

We have used other PaaS clouds previously.

The hospitals were available on Amazon. We have certain hospitals that were part of the group when it first started, but there are a lot of hospitals that are in the process of being acquired. Once the setup is acquired, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming for them to bring it through one enterprise architecture. Now, it is not necessary to have services from only one cloud service provider; instead, we can have services from multiple providers, and we are working to integrate the multi-cloud.

Essentially, you must design and optimize the architecture. It is not the most straightforward process to install. You must first design your architecture and then optimize it in relation to the services.

Earlier I used to work there, and we had a real skill shortage because we needed people who could understand and work in the cloud. When we developed centers of excellence and core competencies, people were required to work across multiple platforms, which is a challenge that we are currently working on. As a result, the real challenge now is for a team to have a multi-cloud. Now, if we can develop this talent organically, that will be fantastic. We'll spread out the support team we require. Another initiative that is being worked on is automation, automating scripts, and new technologies, which are assisting us greatly with serverless and cloud computing.

It can get quite pricey at times. Because of the patterns we're attempting to use, it becomes very expensive. Where we can save money by using Google components or Microsoft components, we can go much cheaper.

You must pay a licensing fee, which is based on the usage.

Essentially, it is determined by how we use the services. There are sometimes are a soft service, sometimes we pay yearly, and sometimes we pay as we use it.

Yes, I would recommend this solution. If we compare the three, I would rank Google first, Microsoft second, Amazon third, and the rest would follow.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

This is a service solution for architecture. It's a cloud solution basically for anything you need. 

I'm happy with the solution.

It's very easy to use. 

The stability and performance are great.

The scalability of the product is great.

Technical support has been great.

I'd like the solution to be more plug-and-play.

I've been using the solution for about ten years at this point. It's been a while.  

The stability is very good. The performance is great and it's quite reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

AWS scales well. It's not a problem to expand it. 

We have 100 users using the solution at this time. They are end-users and clients. 

Our plan right now is to increase usage in the future.

I've used technical support in the past. I don't have any complaints about their services. They are quite good overall.

We did use a different solution, however, the company decided to move to AWS.

There's no installation involved. It's a very straightforward product.

As there is no installation process, you don't need a technical team and you don't have to do any maintenance. 

There is a license fee that you need to pay. There are flexible payment options. For example, you can pay monthly if you want to.

I do recommendations for the development of cloud solutions. 

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature of AWS is that you can scale it up and down as you need. The environment is a rich playground, and if you tried to do the same things on-premises that you do on AWS, it would be a lot more challenging to execute. You can open up a virtual machine on AWS, run some experiments, and be done with it. It's much easier than buying new servers, provisioning them, etc. 

Most of the companies that I've worked for deal with AWS. 

I don't know how many servers they say they have, but AWS is a highly reliable platform. I'm sure they've had outages because it's all over the news when they do, but it's stable overall.

Cloud solutions like AWS are supposed to have near-infinite scalable. That's the point. You can just keep going and make them as big or small as you need. 

AWS is like all the other cloud providers. They're all like vacuum salesmen, where they come in, and they say, "Do you want to buy this hose or this vacuum?" And you're like, "Yeah, it's not that expensive. It's a hose." And then they say, "How about these extra bags?" And you're like, "Okay. I'll buy the bags. It's not that much." Then, at the end of the day, you've bought an entire vacuum store's worth of stuff. You don't know upfront what it will cost, but they have cost calculators and other things like that.

You'll probably experience some sticker shock with AWS. You attempt to understand the cost, but you don't realize what you're paying until you get your first bill. I don't know if Amazon does that on purpose, but costs can get out of control quickly if you don't have someone who specializes in AWS cost management.

I don't even know how many microservices they have now. It seems like hundreds, so what do you do. What would you tell them to do with Aurora compared to their other stuff? There's just so much there that it's tough to get a comprehensive understanding of what you're getting into with AWS. And that's just the nature of AWS. It's a giant ecosystem. Azure is the same. I'm not familiar with GCP, but I'm sure it's the same. They do their best to make it as clean as possible from a sales perspective, but the AWS sticker shock is real.

I'm not sure about the exact costs. When I used to do stuff with Commvault and stuff, I knew the ingress and egress fees and the data cost for storage on AWS, but that was a long time ago.

I guess I would rate Amazon AWS eight out of 10. AWS works as advertised, but they're expensive if you don't know what you're doing. I'm not sure if I can knock them for not being transparent about pricing. Cloud costs are challenging. There's an entire industry popping up for managing cloud costs with consultants who can tell you how to get the most out of your AWS allocation. 

I don't have a lot of advice. If you're planning to implement a cloud solution, just pick one. I mean, if you're a Microsoft shop, it probably makes more sense to go Azure. If you're not, then I would recommend AWS. It depends on what you're looking to get out of it. 

There are references, architectures, case studies, and a million other things that would off better advice on whether to go with AWS or not. But if you're looking to go to the cloud, AWS is as good as everybody else. AWS is probably better than Azure and GCP, but that's a tricky thing to pin down. It depends on what your goals and requirements are. My best advice is to evaluate your goals before making a decision.

I hope that people take what I say about AWS with a massive grain of salt because it's like asking an ant about an elephant. What's an ant going to know about an elephant? It's just too big for any one person to know.

We use Amazon AWS for many applications as well as Amazon's native services. We have a mix of content-based workloads and traditional legacy type of applications. 

Amazon AWS contains a lot of helpful services. 

Amazon AWS would be improved if it were more stable and if customer support's responses were faster. 

I have been using this solution for many years, somewhere between seven and ten. 

This solution has been relatively stable. We had one issue sometime back, so the infrastructure could be more resilient. 

This solution is scalable. 

I have contacted customer support and their response time could be faster. 

We migrated to Amazon AWS from the Data Centers. 

The installation was straightforward. The installation time varies depending on workloads. 

I implemented through an in-house team. We have multiple teams for deployment and maintenance. 

There is no licensing cost. 

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten. I recommend this solution to anyone who wants to start using it. 

We use the AWS Cloud service for storing company-related information.

The cloud-based infrastructure has several good products that people normally use.

We have had several issues with the products and services but as of now, there are no good alternatives.

I have been using Amazon AWS for the past seven years.

I use AWS several times each day, and we plan to continue using it.

We have 7,000 users on AWS.

The technical support and customer service are good.

I have also worked with Microsoft Azure and I find the initial setup of AWS to be easier.

The installation and initial setup are easy.

This is a subscription-based product.

This is not an expensive product but it would be an improvement if the price were cheaper. Google Cloud, for example, is cheaper.

This is definitely a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.