Amazon AWS Reviews

We have, for example, a big analytical platform running on top of AWS. We have many Lighthouse projects in the digital space running on AWS. We have so many things running on AWS. We use it for storage services. We use it for computing services. Its use cases are really very broad.

The product is very easy to use. It's flexible.

It's the leading cloud platform in the world, and it has a very wide variety of services.

The product has a very good ecosystem of its own. 

The product has proven itself to be very stable.

The scalability of the product is great.

Technical support is quite helpful.

The solution could always be further improved on the commercial side of things. Amazon Web Services are not cheap. It would be ideal if it was less expensive for the customer.

We've been using the solution for a couple of years at this point. We're a good AWS customer.

The stability is very good. the performance is excellent. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. Overall, it's excellent.

The solution can scale very, very well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so without too much trouble. 

Currently, I would say, the number of end-users who use applications on top of AWS is only at about 1,000.

We do have plans to continue to use the product and to expand it in the future. We will be scaling it ourselves. 

We've used technical support in the past. We've been very happy with them overall. I have no complaints. they are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. 

There is no installation or implementation per see. It's a cloud service. You simply have to sign up.

The solution can get rather pricey. It should be more reasonable. It's our main complaint about the product - the total cost of ownership is just too high.

We aren't buying licenses, we are buying cloud services. 

We are an enterprise with thousands of applications. We have really a broad mix of infrastructure. We have a technology standard list of several thousand products. We use a lot of AWS services. We're a customer and an end-user.

As a cloud-based solution, we're always using the latest version.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with it overall. 

I would recommend the product to other users and companies. 

It's a powerful infrastructure as a service solution, IaaS. It offers compute resources, storage, networking, and databases to quickly create your cloud infrastructure.

Apart from the infrastructure as a service, the AWS Lambda, which functions as the service FaaS, is really powerful. 

It's a powerful way of quickly assembling or developing applications, which can be scaled immensely and also at a fraction of the cost because you are charged per the execution time of each function. If you are writing a small function as an AWS Lambda function, then you are paying only for those milliseconds for the time at which it runs. 

It's a very cost-efficient way of running applications in the cloud rather than running an EC2-compute instance, which is charged by the hour or by the minute. You typically have to keep the EC2 instance updating all of the time. Whereas in functions, a function is invoked only when a user is calling it. Or, the front-end is calling the backend function. Lambda is very powerful and it is also typically used as a mobile backend. Essentially, it's a very strong API-based backend for mobile solutions.

It has many choices of computer options, storage options, and even database options.

It's flexible, you can run any kind of workload on the infrastructure.

One feature I would like to see is to have a better or a more user-friendly web console. 

The web console of AWS is not so user-friendly. They can make it more user-friendly, which will be good for administrators or users of AWS.

I have been using Amazon AWS for five years.

We are using the latest version.

It's very stable. It is highly reliable.

It is highly scalable. It's a very powerful platform.

In my previous organization, there were 12 people using AWS.

We have used technical support to an extent, and it's fine. We are satisfied with technical support.

I have used Azure Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and I have a bit of experience with Google Cloud as well.

You have to create an EC2 instance, which is the compute. We have to create that to get the compute platform, but you have to install your application. You have to patch the operating system and you have to upgrade your operating system.

The operating system and upwards is the customer's responsibility in an EC2 instance.

It's a straightforward installation because it's your application and your operating system just like you are on-premises, but you will do it on the cloud through a browser or through a CLI, a command-line tool.

The deployment timeline depends on how complex your application is. Because you are getting the platform from AWS as a computing platform, you have to install your application. It depends on the complexity of your application, so it varies.

Depending on how much you are using it, determines the maintenance. Typically, you will need different roles, you will need administrators who operate this environment, and if you are also developing applications, you would need developers.

The installation and deployment can be done by yourself.

You are not paying a licensing fee, you pay for consumption. You pay for your consumption and it' is typically paid on a monthly basis.

It's a pay-as-you-go model.

Some services are expensive, but the basic infrastructure services are a platform that is reasonably priced.

We plan to continue using this solution, and I would definitely recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We are providing a platform as a service to our customers, where we do not manage their end applications.

We do not manage their end workloads, and we do not have visibility into what applications they are running. We are just providing them with hosting services.

We pretty much like everything and we are excited about the seamless capability the EC2 service is offering.

We are mainly using VPC, EC2 instances, a bit of S3 and NAT Gateways, and NAT Instances.

The IEM (Infrastructure Event Management) appears to be complicated, specifically cross-account resource permissions. It's a bit complicated to implement and to understand. It requires a lot of heavy lifting. 

I am not exactly sure if we implemented it poorly, or it is the same.

Cross-validation and logging-in are areas that need improvement.

There are many variables involved in pricing the service in AWS and overall, the pricing is a bit on the higher side. If the variable in pricing could be simplified, that will also help. Sometimes, we don't use these cost optimization tools.

I have been using Amazon AWS for six months.

We just started specifically for this engagement. 

Prior to this, I had worked on AWS in my earlier engagements for quite some time.

We haven't faced any challenges. It's seamless.

Our company is, I would say, a mid-size company. The customer for whom we are onboarding on AWS, their end-users are also from a mid-size company.

Technical support is good.

We are loving this solution so far, and it has certainly reduced the time it takes to stack up new applications. 

Also, we are using it for the first time, for this customer, and they too, are loving it. Specifically, the new application launches and testing. I think they're simply having a good time with it. 

They experiment with things and tear it off when it is not needed, so they are enjoying it.

I would certainly recommend this to others, for sure.

I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten. Our experience has been great!

The initial setup was straightforward to a large extent.

We are continually migrating services, as per the client's requirement. But I think a mid-size application consisting of 10 servers can take two to three weeks to get onboarded on AWS. This is starting from discovery, planning, migration, and then going live.

I think it should be less expensive. There are many variables involved in pricing, such as data transfer, and several other things. 

You have to be very precise, and really detailed, and account for each and every thing. Only then can you do an estimation of how much the application hosting will cost you. You can't afford to be missing a single piece.

There are a lot of pieces that get embedded into costing for each service. So, it's complicated, and I really wish it should have been simpler.

The solution is a critical part of modern retail architecture. There are as many as 3,000 different use cases, and each client uses it differently.

This video explains the whole microservice architecture of which AWS is a key player: (3) Microservice POS Design - YouTube Enjoy

It's been a while since I've looked at the AWS model, however, just at a high level, of course, being able to build a microservice architecture, that's the heart of modern retail. That's where they have to go. COVID has driven everybody to realize that's what you got to do. That's one of the key components of AWS. The cloud piece is a nice supporting concept and it's necessary to make the microservices features work and make the whole architecture really agile. That's a critical component of it as well.

Of course, being able to figure out how you want to coordinate services - that whole service management piece - is critical. You could have thousands of services and I'm pretty sure you'd just be overwhelmed due to the fact that you've lost track of everything and you're back to the way things were when you had the big monolithic models.

The stability is excellent.

The solution has good speed. It's very fast.

The execution is fantastic.

I haven't delved down deep enough into the solution in order to come up with an answer for what may be lacking.

The only real downside to AWS is they can easily shut you down if they want to.

Clients ask us "Well, what happens if I go and put this on AWS and they don't like me for some screwy reason and all of a sudden they shut me down, they've killed my entire company?"

While AWS often is at the top of my list to recommend to people, I always have to tell them, "Hey, you got to be careful because if they don't like you, they can shut you down in a heartbeat. And they can kill an entire company by doing that."

I've had a good understanding of how AWS works for a while. It's likely been about three or four years.

The stability is excellent. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

The solution is extremely scalable. You can be a small company or a multi-billion dollar company and it will work for you. It's number one on my list of recommendations due to its scalability.

I've never reached out to technical support in the past. I can't speak to how knowledgeable or responsive they are.

I didn't actually set up an operating AWS model on my computer. Therefore, it would be difficult to discuss the initial setup.

I tell clients to use it, however, I don't go into building one on my own. I don't have a need for it here, and I don't have applications to run on it. In my case, it's more an architectural world rather than a physical world.

I work on the technology side, I don't work on the financial side. Therefore, I really don't have any clue how much it costs.

I'm just a consultant. I don't have a partnership with AWS or any other company.

AWS is a key part of the whole microservice cloud computing.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

However, if I'm a multi-billion dollar retailer and I need to depend on something, how do I trust a company that can shut me down on a whim? That's a real problem. That moves AWS down and it moves Azure up just on my recommendation list.

From a technology perspective, it's well-proven, it's extensive, it covers just about everything you want to do. That's what I talk about with clients mostly, is the technology side.

While I used to rate the solution ten out of ten, the fact that Amazon can just kill a company on a whim makes me lower my rating. Currently, I'd rate it at an eight out of ten. It's great in almost every way. However, a company needs to understand that AWS can kill your company in a moment if it feels like it.

My primary use case of AWS is cloud computing. I have been using the EKS, EFS, S3, and Lambda. I have a lot of experience with the Kubernetes cluster service, as well as AWS, Azure, and GCP. 

This solution is cloud-based. 

Amazon AWS has many merits, in terms of scalability, stability, and availability. I have loved using this tool. 

Amazon AWS could be improved with cheaper licensing costs. 

I have been using Amazon AWS for more than four years. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

In my organization, there are approximately 500 to 1,000 users of Amazon AWS. 

Amazon's technical support is excellent. I am very satisfied with their support. 

The initial setup was very simple. I have been using Terraform as an infrastructure as code tool, and with Terraform, it's very simple. Within one day, I can provision the AWS Infrastructure as a Service tool and install our platform based on the cloud and data analytics. 

From a cost perspective, Amazon AWS is excellent. You need to pay for a license to use AWS, and the license could be cheaper, but in each of the cases and instances I've used AWS, there has been a good chance to save money. 

I rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten. I usually recommend AWS because I have loved using this tool. Most of the time, I recommend it as a real-time information and patching service with Lambda. 

AWS makes deployment and management of infrastructure easier. We are using so many features, including Lambda, Elastic Beanstalk, Elastic Container Service, EC2 instances, and Landing Zone. We rely heavily on AWS, and we're constantly taking advantage of new features as they come out to see how they can add value to the business. 

AWS's containerization is the most useful feature for us. 

I'd like to see AWS implement consolidated billing for businesses operating under one group. We want to consolidate the functionalities but keep the billing separate. That is a challenge we've faced, and I feel it's something they can improve on. For example, maybe you have three businesses that are operating under one group, and you want each entity to have a separate bill for the respective workload that they're using. But in terms of technical expertise, you want to consolidate the technical support and function of the three accounts. That's an area where AWS is struggling.

I've been using Amazon AWS for about four or five years.

AWS is stable.

AWS is scalable. We're serving close to 7,000 or 8,000 end-users with it.

AWS support is good.

AWS is pay as you go.

We reviewed the main three cloud providers: GCP, Azure, and AWS.

I rate AWS 9.5 out of 10. I would recommend it. 

We use it to host our e-learning platform.

AWS is a platform, wherein they give you a virtual instance of a server. So there is no version per se. They just give you a virtual server. The other software we use is free. We use it for conducting our exams and everything. We use a free, open source software, which is not a commercial software.

Remember, this is a plain vanilla platform. So we don't have to do any actual investment in servers and other things. That is the general advantage of cloud that everybody gets. You don't have to pay a lot of money. And at any point, if you feel you don't want to use it, you stop. It is as simple as that.

The features that I have found most valuable are their compute and their Relational Database Service.

The features that should be improved are that there should be better clarity on their invoicing. There are so many things they charge for - high line items in the invoice. I think there should be more clarity and more ease of use with their billing.

I'd like to see better ease of use with the billing console and a clear dashboard to understand the usage.

I have been using Amazon AWS for almost three years. We are continually using it.

Amazon AWS is very, very stable.

No maintenance is required.

Scalability is unlimited. From one to 10, it is 10.

We use it, but our training participants access it. A lot of people access it. In a year, at different points in time, 200 people might be using it.

I don't think we will be expanding usage because we purchased a little more than what we needed. We don't need to spend any money now. We only pay our monthly charges.

Technical support is good. If you raise a ticket, they're very good. Even with billing, if you have some issues they take care of it. If you are overbilled or you're not using it and then you turn one thing by mistake, and all of a sudden the bill has increased - they'll take care of it.

Previously, we were using general hosting, they even call it shared hosting. But it was not scalable and it was not fast.

The initial setup is all easy. It's very easy.

Our deployment took just a few clicks. You are talking seconds.

I had our technical team do it. But you need a technical person. It's not that anybody can do it or a person like me can do it. You need to have a technical person doing it.

We have seen a return of investment with Amazon AWS.

We are just a customer. We just pay monthly for the subscription cost. I mean, hardly $50. We are a very small company. 

My advice to anyone considering Amazon AWS is that they should plan properly for their spending and they should have good control over their technology team. Otherwise, if the technology team doesn't know enough and they keep on creating more services, you'll be surprised with the invoice. Technology and finance should work very, very closely in the cloud.

On a scale of one to 10, I give Amazon AWS a 10. It's a really good product.

My primary use case is to set up an end-to-end application to deliver a business case involving data ingestion, processing, transformation, and checking, followed by outputs to other functions and processes in AWS and also to external systems.

We are using Step Functions as a core automation tool and it offers great power through its simplicity. It is quite easy to use, although there is a learning curve when using the Step Function scripts. Once mastered, after a week or so, the flows can be built quickly and effectively, allowing us to link a custom business process to multiple other AWS service automatically. 

That done, most business cases can be delivered easily and quickly, all in a serverless and cost-effective way. 

AWS has improved my organization by:

- saving us time, cost, and difficulty by allowing us to use serverless services

- enabling us to assemble complex applications with the minimum of boilerplate and plumbing

- allowing us to pay-as-we-go, so we can rapidly prototype, test, and then deploy to a production application setup

We can run advanced demos with our own data very quickly, showing potential clients the value of our services when we assemble apps for them.

We can show customers clear cost benefits and clearly effective solutions when assembling AWS services together. 

The security has great IAM, roles, and carefully partitioned permissions that allow us to fine-tune control across our applications. External intrusion attempts will never get past application boundaries, which increases trust.

The composition of apps has everything wrapped according to function and applications. We can assemble services as we go. This speeds delivery times by orders of magnitude.

The price forecasting and billing dashboard by service, with billing budgets and alerts, have helped us shut down resources that were accruing costs that we no longer needed, saving us money.

The service's power lies in its simplicity. It is great in that respect. 

The UI is constantly being improved and the billing dashboard has been improved.

Previously, we asked for more end-to-end workshops, examples, and tutorials and these have been added and improved. 

Recently, AWS has been adding improvements across services, documentation, tutorials and we have now got workshops with real-world scenarios which are tremendously useful It makes me a very happy user. 

AWS and the cloud is a space for constant learning and AWS has increased their output in that respect. 

I have been using AWS since 2014.

The solution is very stable. The only errors I encountered were my own. Some services took a few minutes to refresh and propagate across my environments, and once these had propagated, the solutions were rock solid.

The scalability is excellent. At no point have I hit scalability limits with AWS services and features. 

Customer service and tech support were excellent a few years ago when I needed them.

My general process is to explore and check options and run from a tutorial or AWS workshop. If this doesn't get me results, I then do a web search, and I generally find either further AWS docs or a specific example I can use to solve my issue. Within the last few years, my colleagues and I have been able to deliver as required. 

We did previously use a different solution when building AWS Lambda cloud functions. I could compare them directly with Azure Functions and Google Cloud and have found that the AWS Lambda solution is simpler, clearer, deploys quicker, and is generally much more simple and effective to use.

In terms of documentation, AWS is the clear leader. Their end-to-end examples and workshops are much more effective.

AWS services in many cases are deployed to AWS after being validated in Amazon.com's operations. This is evident in the ease-of-use and simplicity of many of the service features, and also in the excellent options offered for more complex services like AWS Forecast, where, for example, a checkbox and drop-down allows the user to add holidays for the country they work in when doing forecasts.

AWS has a stronger focus on business solutions than either GCP or Azure, and in many of the solutions, I have used. This is why in many cases I have switched from using other clouds, to AWS. 

The setup in AWS is a whole service in and of itself. To set up AWS applications, AWS offers a full service, CloudFormation, with some added features that allow us to automate the deployment of the full solution stack.

This makes setup complex, in that one must modify the CloudFormation template one requires and validate it. An external resource was required to check the templates. 

Once this is done, the full solution stacks are automatically deployed. 

I handled the initial setup in-house and by myself.

A recently deployed Step Function automation fulfilled all the needs of a workflow automation engine while remaining below the free operation per month, so we were able to deliver a fully automated application approval process without paying for any workflow automation engine license fees or any server hardware or infrastructure costs.

I would advise others to work from an architecture overview. 

Be aware of the very powerful schema-less data services in the cloud. They can help remove the need for data warehouses - e.g. multi-TB datasets - can be read, joined, queried and made to output daily reports within minutes, on temporary clusters, and that cost less than USD1000 per month. This is compared to the hundreds of thousands of USD for data warehouse licensing costs, plus the schema design time and ongoing DevOps they require.

Moving to serverless operations in the cloud frees up your people to deliver business services rather than spend days and days on administering data centers and the associated concerns that come with them.

I also looked at Azure and it was deemed less reliable than AWS as AWS has not had as many outages and uptime concerns as Azure has had of late. Azure Function Apps, Data Factory, Managed SQL.

Besides Azure, I looked at GCP and VMs, Cloud Functions, Speech-to-Text transcription, BigTable, and BigQuery.

Empower your in-house people to start building and running their workloads in AWS. 

Let them learn as they go. There are multiple online courses for a few dollars that can assist with specific, individual AWS services, as well as running through the AWS workshops. 

Incentivize AWS certifications. Involve your tech people with business solution prototyping. 

Tag your resources, name them well, and set budget thresholds. Assign people to tune the resources being used. Incentivize communications and publish the AWS services and features being used to deliver your business capabilities.