> In general, AWS more often shifts the harder parts of global distributed systems onto their customers, rather than solving them for their customers, like GCP does.
Choice of language in representing this is rather telling, because AWS can (and does) pitch this as a strength, viz. that regionalisation helps customers (especially, significantly, bigco enterprise customers) reason about the possible failure modes, and thereby contain the blast radius of component failure.
They'd never comment on competitors in public, but the clear implication is that apparently global services merely gloss over the risks, they don't resolve them, and eventually it'll blow up in your face, or someone's face at least.
> there is no way around global dependencies
This sounds more like a challenge than an assertion. In my very long experience of tech, anyone who ever said, "you can't do that", eventually ate their hat.
Choice of language in representing this is rather telling, because AWS can (and does) pitch this as a strength, viz. that regionalisation helps customers (especially, significantly, bigco enterprise customers) reason about the possible failure modes, and thereby contain the blast radius of component failure.
They'd never comment on competitors in public, but the clear implication is that apparently global services merely gloss over the risks, they don't resolve them, and eventually it'll blow up in your face, or someone's face at least.
> there is no way around global dependencies
This sounds more like a challenge than an assertion. In my very long experience of tech, anyone who ever said, "you can't do that", eventually ate their hat.