The solution must improve backup and compatibility around OS like Windows and Mac. 

The solution's pricing could be improved. With Amazon Elastic Container Service, you spend a lot of money in the long term.

Amazon Elastic Container Service’s initial setup is a bit difficult. You need to have experience in order to set it up.

The existing domain-joined capability the solution provides during the initial boot-up of the compute should be streamlined and made a little robust. If that fails, you cannot do it again. That part doesn't have any resilience.

For Amazon EC2 Container Service, providing the ability for users to select specific processor, memory, disk, and interface types might be an ideal feature. But, the practicality of offering all possible physical combinations is nearly impossible due to the underlying physical machines. AWS and Azure organize options into groups based on essential components like powerful processors or critical interfaces, considering physical restrictions. While expanding these choices is conceivable, it may not be feasible from a financial and practical perspective. Customers generally comprehend this limitation, as even in their own data centers, exact physical machine requirements are often a result of a combination of factors such as price, availability, and new machine generations.

The more containers there are, the more expensive the solution becomes.

With Amazon Elastic Container Service, we lack full control over the infrastructure. Since it is a managed service for container orchestration, it may limit our control over certain infrastructure functions. This limitation can be a concern if you require deep control over your container or have specific infrastructure requirements.

The solution's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required.

Though not an issue in the product, one of the areas of concern that I have noticed is related to how the tool works. After the load balancer gets attached to Amazon Elastic Container Service clusters, I can't modify, remove, or replace it later. The tool would have been better if there was an option to replace a load balancer. If anyone attaches a wrong load balancer during the creation phase, it has to be brought down and created once again from scratch.

The solution needs to be more usable. It has a node interface, and it would be better if it could be renewed. It's the same thing with WordPress, Google, and any other company doing the same thing. It would be very good if Amazon went to the front by winning that war of usability.

EC2 is not self-explanatory enough. If, while the cloud control tower is set up, they could give a lot of explanations as to what's happening, it would be very easy. For example, if you don't know an AMI ID, you could launch an instance, security group, and all those things. Without experience, you might set up an AMI ID that will cost you, or you may set up a site that's going to cost you, and you will incur a lot of costs, and you won't get to go free without paying the money that you've been charged. If Amazon had more explanations, clients could understand the solution better.

The orchestration of the workloads running in ECS needs improvement. Additionally, they should automate the auto-scaling features for containers.

The product should improve its price. 

Amazon EC2 Container Service should be made easier to use.

Amazon EC2 Container Service should include more enterprise project management features, typically available in an OpenShift environment.

There don't seem to be any improvements needed for ECS at the moment. I will consider them once I get my projects running smoothly and understand the costs better.

Pricing is an area of concern where improvements are required since the cloud services provided by AWS are not cheap. Due to the expensive nature of the cloud services provided by AWS, many people have opted for an on-premises deployment model.

Amazon EC2 Container Service's upgradability is an area with shortcomings requiring improvements.

The solution's user experience and management are really bad.

Amazon Elastic Container Service is not a user-friendly solution. The process of creating everything in Amazon Elastic Container Service is messy. Everything sits in very different locations, and it's not centralized. For example, their networking sits under EC2. You also need to manage the DNS records, which sit under Route 53.

The deployment configuration is located in one place, and the actual EC2 is located in a different place. You have a lot of components to manage, and every one of them is located in a different place, which makes it disorganized.

We need RAM, CPU, and install cPanel. cPanel is a separate third-party tool. If we install an EC2 tool, it would be an interface for managing files and databases, making it easier to maintain them.

Amazon EC2 Container Service needs to improve the menu design. It needs to improve deployment with better documentation. 

The solution could provide more reliability. There could be an option for the customers to manage the services. Also, there need to be more custom features that would allow customers to access the ECS containers and deploy them.

We noticed a problem where our container doesn't always run, and the traffic in our secured license exceeds 100%, leading to increased container costs. We are working to understand and reduce this traffic to control costs.

There is room for improvement in the licensing costs. There can be better licensing costs. 

The solution needs to improve backup and pricing. 

There is room for improvement, particularly in logging and monitoring for the product, while integrating external third-party tools like Elastic Log Kibana and Grafana or Primatius. They could provide easier options for third-party integrations similar to internal AWS services.

Amazon EC2 Container Service's security can be improved. For example, ECS should be integrated with multiple teams and cloud providers to make it more accessible and secure. Additionally, AWS should provide more security policies for ECS resources to prevent unauthorized access. Support could also be improved.

Visualization is an important factor for me, and I don't think that the visuals within ECS are good enough because it doesn't show you all the details you might need to see at a glance.

Another aspect that could be improved is that our monitoring within ECS depends on other services like CloudWatch, for example, and with this arrangement you have to constantly switch between screens when navigating around. Because of this, it's difficult to take a look at your monitoring data, or even just to set up, and it can be very frustrating.

Perhaps it would be possible to improve this situation by having the ability to include everything on one status page. For example, if there is a service or container that is exhibiting a bug or is in some type of loopback mode, when I click on it, I could be shown the screen with all the errors displayed right there.

The problem with containerization technology is that many businesses do not trust it right now, and only use it in their development environment. For example, if you spin down the container then all of the data inside it gets deleted. From our perspective, we think that this technology is good, and it is really an issue of awareness. I am very much excited by this technology and am okay with it. I think that it would help if the vendor provided more use cases and explanations as to how ECS can be utilized.

For instance, we've opted for a fixed monthly fee, which covers us for a broad range of data usage. However, with Amazon, the billing tends to increase exponentially as data usage grows, which poses some financial challenges for us. We've also integrated AWS and Synchronoss services into our setup.

I also believe there are limitations in terms of upgrading. The software has the concept of dedicated servers that you can manage. However, an issue arises when you can't match one operating system with another that you've already purchased. You can't simply merge them; instead, you have to buy a completely new one. This limitation has caused some challenges for us.

The documentation and usage for the users can be better because for new users it can be very hard to understand and use the solution. They can add small images and accessories.

I see they have changed the console a bit to make it easier to use. Probably, they should include automated graphing, and monitoring solutions. Currently, I have to set up all of those by myself.

I would like fewer updates.

Billing is extremely complex. The whole concept of billing is so complicated that we never understand it. There is an upfront cost, and there is a network cost. It is impossible for me to calculate the cost, understand it, and inform the client about it.

We are never sure of our end cost. Sometimes the cost blows up and ends up being five times more than what we calculated. There is no way to understand the cost. I want the solution to have a better billing system and dashboard to understand the billing.

The solution could be more intuitive. If I'm using a service and my backup has gone down, there should be a notification or suggestion to help me understand what I can do. It should explain how I could have avoided the issue. EC2 is huge, and we'll never know all its services. The tool should have a way of suggesting to me what I can do better.

It can be through notifications, tutorials or through their customer service team. The product could provide CI/CD services in the future.

There is room for improvement in the pricing of Amazon EC2 Container Service. Also, mainly on the network issues to access the container.

The product can become expensive if you don't choose what you want. 

The solution can still be expensive, even with per-second billing.

In the next release, they could add some customization options for high computer workloads.

The solution is expensive compared to other alternatives like Azure. 

There is nothing I would like to change about the solution at this time. 

The pricing could be a bit better. The Amazon Cloud expense can get high.

The solution’s UI should be improved.

Sometimes, the instances fail under the ECS container cluster, and we have to manually go and find out the black sheep in the ECS container instance. 

We had an issue earlier where one of the instances under the ECS container cluster went down, and we were not able to identify that instance. The instance got terminated, but a new instance did not come up. Therefore, I had to manually get that instance up. It could be optimized better. In production, we normally cannot sustain such things. It can be optimized in terms of instances, durability, and serving the requests of customers.

Amazon Elastic Container Service should simplify its management. It can be difficult for someone who doesn't have much experience with the tool. Also, the tool needs to add the ability to manage networks.  

We faced challenges with AWS and I feel the support could have been better - more timely with their response, more knowledgeable staff and more customer friendly. As a partner, I'd like to see a response from the appropriate team and know that they'd help us throughout. AWS is in partnership with other product vendors in developing the connectors and could have given a direction to another vendor, Tableau, for example, because when we try to use those connectors to hook up the data into cloud, it was challenging and a very difficult exercise to go through with AWS in order to resolve the problem. Both sides tell us it's not their problem.

This is a really good tool, but it's complex because you need to understand how it works to get the best of this tool. It would help if things were simplified so it could be more user friendly.