Amazon AWS Reviews

I'm not the developer, so I cannot judge the services provided by AWS, but we run our mobile banking application on AWS. Database-wise, it's heavily based on Elasticsearch, so this is probably one of the main features that we find most valuable. Aside from that, I'm not familiar with which AWS services we are using.

It's too early to say what needs to be improved, as we went live only at the beginning of this year. We started last year and went live at the beginning of this year, so it's still a work in progress. In terms of additional features we'd like to see, the one thing that comes to mind is better integration with Oracle. We have a lot of Oracle databases, and there is no other option to either migrate to PaaS, stay on-prem, or use Oracle Private Cloud. So better integration with Oracle is something we are looking into. It's the same story with AWS or Azure. 

We introduced AWS in production last year, so it's a relatively new development.

Setting up AWS was pretty easy. It was straightforward to set up, and it took us a year to develop and migrate our mobile banking solution to the AWS cloud. Our migration experience was quite positive.

The pricing of AWS was attractive for us, so that's something that's okay at least for this transaction-based system. However, we still have some concerns about more data-driven applications or those that involve a lot of heavy uploading and downloading. So our whole data warehouse is still something that would not go into the cloud because of the pricing model. So if you stayed pretty much in the cloud, that's fine.

I would rate Amazon AWS seven out of 10. We're really satisfied.

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.

I use the solution in my company to use several services like ECS, EKS, and S3 while also making it easy to use its hosting services in our infrastructure. The solution is good for efficiently leveraging all the aforementioned services to host different products.

The cost of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Amazon AWS for around six years.

The solution's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product's scalability is good.

All the people in my company use the product. My company has engineers, software developers, site reliability engineers, and DevOps engineers who use the product.

The solution is used on a daily basis in my company.

For the purpose of scaling our company's operations, we host most of our applications on Amazon EKS. My company uses third-party open-source solutions for scalability purposes, so we are not completely dependent on Amazon AWS for autoscaling.

My company takes care of the problems related to the product. My company doesn't contact the product's technical support team. Though I have some previous experience with the product's support team, I haven't recently contacted them.

Previously, I worked with a tool on an on-premises model. I chose Amazon AWS since I wanted to use a cloud-based product.

My company is not dependent on Amazon AWS for deployment purposes since we use our own tools to handle the deployment area. My company uses Amazon AWS for the underlying platform but not for the deployment area since we have our own setup for it.

The initial setup phase may be pretty easy for those who learn to gain knowledge and expertise in Amazon AWS. At the initial stage, the product's users may look for more documentation on the tool, but I feel that the services under Amazon AWS are self-explanatory. I rate the product's initial setup phase a seven or eight out of ten.

I am a part of the team in my company that carries out the product's deployment in multiple regions.

The product's deployment process consists of a fully automated setup phase. Though my company had to be involved in a lot of engineering work in the initial phases, only around four to six members were required to take care of the deployment after the automation.

The solution can be deployed in around 10 to 15 minutes.

The tool is expensive.

As of now, our company does not need to leverage Amazon AWS for Amazon Big Data Analytics or Amazon Machine Learning. In the future, Amazon AWS can be used to leverage the benefits of Amazon Big Data Analytics or Amazon Machine Learning. Presently, my company plans to stick with the microservices model.

There is no need to maintain the product from our company's end since Amazon AWS takes care of the maintenance of the services the tool covers.

For cost saving, shut down instances when not in use and use spot instances while implementing step scaling policies. Doing regular audits, you will get to know what resources in your environment are leading to cost consumption.

AWS Global Cloud Infrastructure does not directly impact our company's application performance and availability. My company just consumes the services covered under Amazon AWS, after which we plan our application architecture. The impact is felt if Amazon removes support for some of its global products, as it may impact some legacy applications, but my company does not face many issues since we mostly upgrade such applications.

I rate the overall tool a seven or eight out of ten.

The product is easy to use. Its availability and support are its biggest strengths.

IAM must be made simple and straightforward. It is a little bit complicated compared to GCP.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The product is stable.

The product is scalable.

My company had signed up for professional support. We did not have any issues with support. It would be really tough to reach out to the support team on a personal level. For personal users, I rate the support a three to four out of ten. For professional users, I rate it a nine out of ten.

We are also using Google Cloud Platform. The choice of the product depends on people’s familiarity and their inclination toward using a certain product.

The tool’s pricing is reasonable.

I would recommend the solution. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

The introduction of the ITD pipeline makes the development and operation cycle easier for the organization.

The solution also helps organizations to move applications to a containerized platform.

Instead of using some third-party solutions, Amazon should include them as part of its offering.

Currently, we are using some third-party services for various purposes. Amazon can acquire those open-source products and provide them with managed services.

I have been using Amazon AWS for about six years.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is always high, and the customer can seamlessly scale up the solution. I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is very easy. Amazon AWS is the easiest cloud platform to learn and deal with compared to any other provider.

I rate Amazon AWS a nine out of ten for ease of initial setup.

Any service built on AWS is very easy and quick to deploy and does not take much time. Within 10 to 15 minutes, you can bring a server up and launch a website.

The pricing of Amazon AWS is high compared to any other cloud provider.

Amazon AWS was deployed on the cloud in my organization.

Overall, I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

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.

I use Amazon AWS to host services for my clients, as well as creating SMTP services for them. These are the main two use cases. AWS offers a wide range of services, but I do not use them all.

AWS has a lot of flexibility, which is great.

Recently tried the boot on the desktop, which is where you create a virtual desktop, on a laptop for example. You provide this, and you can use a laptop on the cloud and have everything safe, without having to purchase an expensive laptop.

When I tried with another company, from Azure, which uses the same thing, that with the boot as desktop they had some work needed to make some changes to the AWS desktop. They are not as flexible or powerful as a platform as Azure on this subject.

Previously, they had great VoIP software that they used in AWS, and when I created an account, they didn't have the option to assign too many numbers, local numbers, that could be used for hosting.

In terms of improvement, they should try to give more emphasis to the VoIP system.

I have been working with Amazon AWS for the last two years.

You can deploy and create any number of virtual machines to meet your needs.

Amazon AWS is very stable.

When I'm setting up SMTP servers for clients. They use SMTP as the main platform, but for example, on their CRM, and to be honest, I never go back to that to check for any issues from the day one that I finish the task and provide everything to the CRM developers to proceed with the integration.

We have over 60 companies in our portfolio, and I would estimate that half of them use AWS services.

Going through the chats has left me a little disappointed. It's taking far too long, and I have to come back with questions. The reason could be that they have too many departments internally, so they assign a ticket from one department to another, and it takes a long time to complete the task and provide an accurate solution.

I'm using both Microsoft Azure and AWS at the same time.

I am a Microsoft Azure certified technician, and some of my clients have asked me about some potential within the product. Based on my research, I discovered that this project can be easily designed using AWS rather than Microsoft Azure. This is why I'm learning more about AWS. It is similar to that of Microsoft Azure, and I'm using it, that we can, say, shut down Microsoft Azure completely and then send all of my clients to AWS.

Half of them are AWS, half are Microsoft Azure, and sometimes there are internal IT departments, which need to follow this path, to create the architecture on Microsoft Azure or AWS based on their architecture.

They are difficult to set up. Before you can start using AWS, you must first read the documentation and learn a lot about it.

I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.

It is not very easy, and difficult to complete some of the tasks.

They have a pay-as-you-go subscription. You pay only for the time you use the service. By service, I mean that they are not frequently used by clients. It's the best idea because they are very expensive to them because if it's a small company and you have the option of pay as you go as a solution, it would be less expensive, and better for the company in terms of saving money.

However, if some large clients, for example, use AWS as a hosting provider and compare their prices with other hosting providers, other hosting providers are more affordable. 

I believe that a pay-as-you-go solution is very inexpensive, but not for monthly or fixed prices.

I am a partner and reseller.

I would advise them, before they use the account before they open an account with Amazon, to do their account around just to learn a bit about that solution and then start using it, because it will take a long time to understand how that platform works, how you're going to create a VM on there, how you can create an SMTP.

It is not a simple procedure that we point to and then follows some steps to complete. You must be familiar with information technology. You must have at least basic IT knowledge of a hosting site. This is a platform, and before they begin using it, they must check a number of things and understand how they will proceed.

I would rate Amazon AWS a seven out of ten.

We're a native AWS customer and a provider as well. We have multiple solutions running in there, and we are also doing infrastructure as a code and infrastructure as a service. For example, we can offer you lower prices than the price that you would pay for an AWS instance because we are an official partner of Amazon. So, we are taking all the advantages of what we currently have with AWS. 

It is being used for ECM. In terms of deployment, from an AWS perspective, it is partly self-developed based on Terraform, and we are also using services like S3, S9, and all the things we have in AWS for DNS, but it is highly automated. When a customer comes in and says that they need an instance clustered with certain options and a certain amount of service, it's usually firing up one line of code, and then everything gets set up, including the infrastructure.

We're working with its newer version.

Scalability is one of the biggest benefits we have.

We have a very good approach internally with what we have developed. It involved overcoming some hurdles regarding the single point of truth or single point of configuration, which is sometimes not that easy for AWS. There are dashboards and you have your web service, but bringing all these together and orchestrating is sometimes quite difficult.

My estimate is six years, but it might be way earlier. We ramped up way early with AWS on the market and developed together with them.

It is very scalable. Our customers are from every corner you can imagine. There is no specific type of customers we are serving.

We have a direct relationship with AWS. We are not running with the usual support with AWS. We have other possibilities and are directly integrated. 

It is easy. With our solution, it's really a piece of cake. Even my seven-year-old would be able to set up a cluster with high availability, as long as I tell her what to enter.

It is quite expensive in my very personal opinion. Going on-prem in a data center is, for sure, not as expensive as going to AWS, but when it comes to a point where you are raising and growing, it simply makes a lot of sense to stay in AWS. It is awesome in that way. I am not aware of any extra costs.

Azure is something that we are currently looking into as a second option, but there are no concrete actions planned.

It boils down to two points. The first point would be to have correct planning. You need to know what you want to do and you need to be familiar with what you can do in AWS. The second very important point is that you need very stable and very good monitoring of your AWS instances. This is mandatory because if you fire up a very expensive environment and forget it over weeks, you need to pay for that. I've seen a lot of companies struggling to get an overview of all these AWS machines. It starts by tagging and so on.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.