Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think this is a nice little piece (though as others have said - not exactly breaking new ground) and I just wanted to add something to this:

> "Smaller providers cannot operate at my yottabyte scale"

I used to work at a company, now closed, that at one point was the #2 or #3 user of S3 in the world. We were not a big company and the fact that we were inexorably bound to Amazon was a harbinger of our doom. That we were too large for most solutions and that we had become trapped on one provider was a sign of our poor decisions and our inability to think laterally and, effectively, do anything other than digging straight down.

I raise this because I think that, if you ever find yourself thinking you're too big for a small provider, I think you should treat that fact as an existential threat to your company. Either you build your own hardware setup or you break up how you do things so you can use smaller companies (even if you chose not to). All the tooling and learning you do to fragment, migrate and validate your data will be invaluable.



Or you just use a cloud provider, which will be able to scale well beyond whatever your company grows to.

> All the tooling and learning you do to fragment, migrate and validate your data will be invaluable.

Too bad this learning has absolutely nothing to do with 99% of any business out there. It adds zero value to the company. In fact, it is a net negative because the company could be doing anything but learning something like that.

Opportunity cost is a real cost.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: