Amazon AWS Reviews

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 use several tools that are part of AWS, which are onboarded to our infrastructure.

We have five or six EC2 instances that make up our AppDynamics component of the link. We are using Paperclip for restoring files, and we use other scripts as well. These are tools that we use from day-to-day.

Using AWS is really helpful for saving costs. We used to have to budget a lot for hardware costs, but now we have EC2 instances that are based on the requirements. For example, if you want one CPU then the cost is based on that, whereas if you require more, then it is automatically included.

There should be seminars and online training sessions available from AWS because a lot of people who are not using it would benefit from having the basic knowledge or basic hands-on experience. If they gain experience with it, then they will be happy to use it in the future.

Training could be in the form of more documentation or training videos. Any increase would make this solution easier to handle.

I have been using Amazon AWS for almost two years.

We use AWS on a daily basis and it is really stable.

We have more than 10,000 users on AWS and we are definitely planning to increase usage. We are the MNP and we have close to one million users in our India location.

Currently, we are introducing our web support and once we need infrastructure to be installed, we will create more instances.

The technical support is really good because whenever we we need help, we just raise a ticket and we get a solution.

I know a little bit about  Azure and GCP, but I am only really familiar with AWS. From our perspective, 60% of users implement AWS.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have the guidelines and documents from AWS, so it is easy for us. AppDynamics is also supporting us for the installation of their components. 

The time required for deployment is not long. Creating an EC2 instance only takes between 15 and 20 minutes.

We no longer need a team for the installation. When we first started, they guided us, and now we have the experience that allows us to do it on our own.

AWS and its cloud platform are getting to be well known through social sites and other sources. It is definitely a product that we recommend. We have experience with it and encourage other people to use it as well.

I would rate this solution a nine 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.

We do have quite a lot of AWS deployments and clients in certain countries.

We use it for spinning up environments, using infrastructure as code. We use it for disaster recovery and high availability for creating BMs for testing. Mainly on the service side, we use it for setting up environments and spinning up environments.

The monitoring is the most valuable aspect of the product.

Technical support is available if you need it.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is okay. It's similar to what you would get with Azure. 

The interface needs a bit of work. It's not intuitive.

The solution's initial setup can be complex. 

I've been using AWS for about 15 years. It's been a very long time. 

The stability is fine. I haven't had issues with crashing or bugs or glitches. 

The solution's scalability is pretty good. These solutions are pretty well known for not being able to scale well. They behave very differently at scale. I wouldn't say it's any better or worse than Azure is; it's probably on par.

Internally, we have about 500 people using the solution right now. 

I have never used technical support myself, although it's my understanding that our team does from time to time. We do all the first line ourselves. Anything that escalates to the third line, we have contracts in place to help us get assistance.

I found the initial setup to be pretty complex. It's just getting more and more complex, with the infrastructure as CodePipelines and that sort of thing. On a scale of one to five, one being the worst and five being the best in terms of complexity, I'd say it's a three.

I have no idea what the operational side does in terms of maintenance. It's not an aspect that falls under my responsibilities. 

I don't handle the licensing side of things and therefore cannot comment on the price of the solution.

We also looked at Azure DevOps.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We use various deployments, including on-premises, public, private, and hybrid clouds. The deployment is dependent on the customer, the solution, and the service level agreements that we have. We use all of those models. We make our choice based on the requirement.

I'd advise potential new users to actually do a shootout between the different products based on your use case and choose the right one.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, however, the UI needs improvement first.

We are doing our own custom development, which is run on AWS.

We have done a lot of work using Amazon AWS.

All of our deployments are hosted on the Amazon AWS Cloud. Because many of our client requirements are on AWS, we have our own AWS development environment, and then we use GitLab to migrate it to the client environment.

We write a lot of Lambda functions for various services, as well as serverless functions.

We use Amazon S3 to store a large amount of data and images.

We also use Amazon DynamoDB Database for many of our developments.

Many of these features are already available on AWS. We're just getting started, and we're still learning a lot.

The performance is good.

We would like to see if AWS includes any inbuilt automation. Also, we are very interested in AWS's AI/ML features, as well as IoT, AR, and VR.

We have been using Amazon AWS for the last couple of years.

The stability of Amazon AWS is good. We have not had any issues.

It is easy to scale.

In our company, we have approximately 20 people who are using Amazon AWS, on a daily basis.

We have a few issues in the beginning during the setup, but we were able to resolve them ourselves.

We are satisfied with the technical support.

The development is primarily on Python, Node.JS, and Java technologies.

The initial setup was quite complex at first, but once we got the hang of it, it was simple.

It took a week to complete the installation from scratch.

Because it is a cloud product, it does not require a lot of maintenance. We have CloudWatch and some alerts set up, which is how we manage everything, including utilization.

We completed the installation internally.

The pricing is fair. We don't have any issues with the pricing.

I was evaluating different ways to incorporate RPA.

I would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it. 

It's very scalable and serverless. We are only charged for the functions that we use. This includes Lambda, which is a nice feature, in my opinion.

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.

We build our own service virtualization tools. We use Amazon AWS for cloud hosting. AWS has a lot of services that we use.

Everything in AWS is valuable? AWS itself is valuable in multiple ways. Whatever I use is valuable, which is the reason we use it.

It has a lot of new features that make our lives easier in terms of what we want it to do in the house.

I have been using Amazon AWS for four years.

Amazon AWS is quite stable, which is why it is used by many people.

Amazon AWS is highly scalable.

There's no tech support. AWS operates under a different model. There is no simple tech support available, as there is in other traditional methods. We have an enterprise account, so it's not like individual tickets; we have an enterprise client relationship, so it's very different.

It is easy to access them.

I've worked with a variety of service virtualization tools.we have not used anything from IBM. We don't use Azure, we use Amazon AWS. AWS as an IaaS or PaaS cloud solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. However, you can't give a broad overview of your setup as it depends on your use case.

There are numerous use cases, and the setup varies from complicated to very simple in some cases. As a result, I don't want to give a generic answer.

It's quite good, I would rate Amazon AWS a ten out of ten.

Amazon AWS has a better portfolio. They have an impressive technology and service portfolio.

The invoicing procedure of Amazon AWS needs to be improved. It can be difficult to manage.

I have used Amazon AWS within the last 12 months.

The technical support of Amazon AWS is good.

I have used Oracle previously, and I don't see any difference between Amazon AWS and Oracle from the stability and availability point of view.

Amazon AWS is a bit more expensive than Oracle.

I rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten.