TIL: AWS is only expensive if your time has no value.
Article neglected to add the cost of labour for setup (edit: aside of racking), maintenance (security updates on infrastructure, etc), and disaster response.
It also missed the cost of downtime based on projected MTTR for a failure. The word "fail" only appears once in the page, and not in regards to recovery, only preventative replacement.
It's absolutely true that colo is cheaper than AWS for projects that can absorb the labour and failure related costs, but that usually is only true for hobby or very small business services.
It's absolutely true that colo is cheaper than AWS for projects that can absorb the labour and failure related costs, but that usually is only true for hobby or very small business services.