The global backlash against the second Donald Trump administration keeps on growing. Canadians have boycotted US-made products, anti–Elon Musk posters have appeared across London amid widespread Tesla protests, and European officials have drastically increased military spending as US support for Ukraine falters. Dominant US tech services may be the next focus.
There are early signs that some European companies and governments are souring on their use of American cloud services provided by the three so-called hyperscalers. Between them, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) host vast swathes of the Internet and keep thousands of businesses running. However, some organizations appear to be reconsidering their use of these companies’ cloud services—including servers, storage, and databases—citing uncertainties around privacy and data access fears under the Trump administration.
“There’s a huge appetite in Europe to de-risk or decouple the over-dependence on US tech companies, because there is a concern that they could be weaponized against European interests,” says Marietje Schaake, a nonresident fellow at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center and a former decadelong member of the European Parliament.
As should have been done already 10 years ago. When it became clear American authorities can seize any information even when stored on servers outside USA, by any American service provider.
And Obama claimed it was a “fair balance”.USA has in many ways acted almost like a totalitarian regime for decades, disregarding their own laws, international laws, and especially the laws of other countries, even allies.
This became very clear when Obama stressed that illegal surveillance/monitoring wasn’t used against American citizens.
Obviously meaning that citizens of other countries have no rights, and there are no laws preventing American intelligence in any way.As it turned out, what Obama promised wasn’t even true, and Americans stationed in for instance Iraq, were very much monitored.
With regard to information of other countries, USA has CLEARLY demonstrated, that they have no regard for decency or even laws.
This was revealed when Obama was president, and the Republicans are even worse!!
USA and EU has made an agreement on this, claimed to make it legal in EU to use American cloud services.
But as we have seen, no American administration gives a fuck about such agreements or even laws, so that agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.Wow. This guy hates Obama lol.
No I don’t, Obama was a good president and USA was a strong ally under him.
I hate Trump.
But it’s alarming IMO that a president that we consider moderate and a friend, still think these things are OK.
And Obama was just unfortunate that it was under him that these things were revealed.
I’ve been closing all my US based accounts recently. I was looking for a non US based Password manager service a couple of days ago. I used european-alternatives.eu and looked at a couple of options before settling on “Heylogin” it is so good I thought I had better recommend it to others… oh and I dumped chat GPT for chat.mistral.ai a couple of weeks ago, I recommend giving it a go.
But why? There are already a lot of great services based in Europe. For example, Hetzner and OVH. Their product offerings aren’t exactly 1:1 w/ those big three, but they have a lot of great tools, and you can get pretty far w/ a DIY approach, you just need to hire some OPs people to manage things. Hetzner even has S3-compatible storage.
I get that there’s a lot of interesting abstractions w/ places like AWS, but I’m also of the opinion that a lot of it is unnecessary and just adds cost. Learn to orchestrate things properly and build some tooling to utilize the APIs these cloud services provide, and you can achieve the same thing for less cost.
For lower end, absolutely. For higher end enterprise space? Not so much. For me, AWS is the gold standard for product support and price at enterprise scale, and I do think I have ever worked on an enterprise application that could orchestrate 100% on its own (only for bad reasons, this is what I do at home).
I do hope a lack of reliance on these services leads to better technological solutions to come out of Europe and make its way back to the states. The enterprise made the Faustian bargain with these CSPs, and although the cloud networking is somewhat nice, the applications are a disaster.
AWS is the gold standard for product support and price at enterprise scale,
Jesus fucking christ. Do you love being screwed over in every way possible? AWS support is… bad. And their prices? Worse.
Up next is “Oracle is a really good Database server vendor, for support and price”?
Let’s be clear here: I would never say that about oracle.
But yeah, idk what to tell you. What cloud service vendor have you had a better experience with than AWS? Genuinely curious. Do you really like GCP? I have had some good experiences, but I feel some of their services can be a miss. If you say Azure or IBM, I won’t believe you. For projects that I would consider enterprise scale, I don’t take anyone else seriously.
Enterprise is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I would never use them for my smaller scale personal stuff. I would recommend something like Digital Ocean to smaller devs, but for personal projects I think self hosted is the way to go.
price at enterprise scale
Really? I thought that’s where big cloud services fleece customers the hardest… We use AWS at work, and I’m always surprised when I ask our devOPs how much we’re paying.
My understanding is they’re selling the “time is money” angle, where things work together well so you spend less time getting stuff set up.
Yes, that is why I said enterprise scale. Pricing for personal stuff is pretty terrible, although it is reasonable in some ways.
I find AWS prices to be very reasonable, but it is much different than going race to the bottom deal hunting on hetzner. That’s definitely where you want to go deal hunting, but it isn’t suitable for a lot of enterprise applications.
With the bigger CSPs, you really have to take care of the billing yourself to get the best value. Last year, my team was able to cut our client’s cloud bill by 85% while improving service. Kind of unfair - AWS will happily take your money to do stuff incorrectly. They have business units at AWS around customer success that aims to help cut costs, but I can kind of tell they aren’t a priority at the company compared to account execs. Pretty normal for this business, unfortunately.
We use AWS at work, and the “cutting costs” thing seems largely a way to further lock-in customers. They want you to build around their tools so the switching cost is high enough to not be worthwhile. Then again, I don’t work directly with billing (I’m a SWE, not in OPs), but what I’ve seen looks a lot higher than I would’ve guessed.
Idk, maybe it’s reasonable at scale, but it seems to get really expensive really fast.
Yes, vendor lock in is always a concern around AWS. I am of 2 minds about this - the real trade off with on demand resources is cost as AWS has to essentially have hot instances ready for customers, which cost them more to run. So it definitely makes sense to have these billing options that help them save operational overhead and then pass the savings on to their customers.
But it is a fine line. What should be AWS responsibility and what should be the customers? Amazon’s whole deal is trying to step over it it ways that will ultimately be monopolistic. Personally, I am much more concerned with the egress costs, which is their true and much sneakier vendor lock in trap.
To me, the only answer is government regulation. We should treat cloud resources as a utility and regulate it as such to make sure that the large players don’t abuse their monopoly on compute power and servers. Instead, the government’s answer has been to do away with net neutrality, which really only makes them more powerful because they still have a monopoly on the physical resources. This is one of the reasons why I have become self hosted for my own personal technology - but for work there are a lot of benefits to just shutting up and working with a monopoly that at least has to try to drive down costs at some level to prevent regulatory action.
These services only make sense at scale and with large projects that need a ton of planning everyday. AWS will take the little people’s money if they are willing to give it, but they aren’t truly interested in their business.
egress costs, which is their true and much sneakier vendor lock in trap.
Absolutely. That’s basically Oracle’a db strategy.
Things like this are why I’ll never use AWS, even if I get to a scale where it makes sense. I value the ability to switch to a different provider or self-host with my own hardware.
the only answer is government regulation
Ideally the market is competitive enough that regulation isn’t needed. But maybe that ship has sailed.
I agree with regulations like Net Neutrality, so I guess it would depend on how it’s worded. I’m just worried massive players like AWS would find ways to abuse any regulations we try to make to exclude others.
But yeah, I don’t pitch switching at work, because I’m not in charge of infra or really involved with it at all. I’m a SWE, not a devOPs or IT tech, so if I’m touching anything in Cloudwatch other than looking at logs, something has gone horribly wrong.
The government can get a lot tougher on companies than they currently are in the US. There is a large and somewhat unstoppable public distrust of corporations that will swing the pendulum away from distrust of the government. Whatever part of the federal government that people didn’t trust is having their image re-rehabilitated by DOGE’s idioacy anyway. Corporations will do sneaky lobbying and everything, but at the end of the day they will follow laws that are enforced properly. They don’t have miliataries or private police forces. At least not yet.
I would hope to see cloud service providers fall more under a utility type of regulation, and have the government set up regional ISOs that can buy and distribute services to everyone at regulated prices, and adhere to certain computing standards. This is why I don’t get too mad at billing deals and schemes - if computation, storage, and virtual network infrastructure can be standardized and treated as a utility it would be great for everyone! They deserve to get paid for the power they have to consume and the maintenance and operations cost of a datacenter.
Instead, we see these companies play a very tricky game using the egress costs to capture traffic and activity within their infrastructure. The same strategy applies at Google with ads dictating browser development, at Amazon’s winners and losers based retail business, and everyone’s race to the bottom stealing data for hungry AI model training. It doesn’t work Jim. We need to establish fair legislation for democratizing access to computing and storage at a large scale, the same way we already did with internet access. Instead, we are seeing it go the wrong way with the corporate war against net neutrality from service providers, which is bad for cloud services anyway. In my area, cox was doing some bad stuff, which finally prompted google to come in and deliver fiber they had been teasing for around a decade, which drove costs way down for internet. So hopefully all this stuff will work itself out, but we really need to focus on empowering everyone with access to computation and ownership of their data.
For work, I am lucky enough to work for an employer that has enough pull with AWS that they essentially have to listen to us. But I prefer their open market and transparent, if complicated, pricing to trying to work though a deal with a dozen different other software platform vendors all trying to close business and screw over our clients. Even their sales people are pretty well incentivize to drive service consumption rather than promote lock in. This is leading to a huge problem in AI, but once again I respect the approach AWS is taking with hugging face and making it about flexible consumption than what microsoft and google are doing, trying to shove AI down your throat.
Maybe we go back to p2p, public key encryption and desktop apps. ipfs can store all the data in the distributed manner and gov can pay citizens for keeping data as a tax exception. But who I am to question building big corporations over and over again.
P2P has insane latency and is not applicable to most industries. It’s a decent idea for back ups though. P2P also has insane energy costs. It’s not as bad as BitCoins, but it will destroy our planet for sure.
I think that cloud costs are pretty much hidden under the corporate curtain. Things like water usage, energy usage for those 24/7 running servers, amount of servers that are running and not doing anything, finally the environmental impact around those big blocks of servers are pretty much not existent in the media.
Torrent sharing is doing fine.
Also doing same things over and over again because USA have it so Europe must have it to is not the way to go for me. I think Europe need it’s own way for technology and have all the bits to do it. I’m not saying that Europe should do the youtube in p2p manner because that’s insane but gov administration and countries beurocracy can go p2p.
P2P energy cost will be way less in my opinion. The servers don’t need to be online 24/7 if you think about it, for office workers they just need them when they are working. For people you can just request old data on demand and spin up server once per week to send bunch of encrypted emails. We’re used to that internet is instant but gov shouldn’t be instant it should be slow and stable so you don’t get punished, that’s completly oposite from what mainstream media internet is.
Cloud costs are super low. That’s why clouds are so cheap - every penny is optimised, because it eats into profits. P2P is extremely expensive and resource intensive.
Torrents are not doing fine, torrents are a really good example of huge resource waste, latency and stability issues. And, contrary to your opinion, it’s better to make YouTube P2P than gov services. Because YouTube is not sensitive to latency and doesn’t require stability or security.
Your idea that gov services should not be instant is just bonkers.
In any case, P2P is useless, insecure, slow and power hungry. And, once again, it shouldn’t be used for anything but back ups.
I think we can end discussion here because what you wrote is completly not true.
Do you even know what P2P stands for ? Do you know that you use P2P every day and all the time, for example by using HTTP2/QUIC.
You need 0 resources to run P2P network.Cloud computing costs are way higher than colocating server anywhere. Many companies are moving out from cloud after facing high costs. The only place cloud is shining is when you want to spin up many resources for a short period of time. And that is because we don’t have kind of computing power provider on the market where you could spin up many resources from many local computers.
Do you even know why cloud took of 20 years ago ? Have you been using internet 20 years ago ? Compare connection speed of local houshold from 20 years ago with speed right now. Compare mobile internet plan and think how it changed.
You have no idea what you are writing about.
Removed by mod
You suck brest milk for over 20 years ?
Nextcloud
