> At Amazon, practically every service is built on top of AWS - a proper vote of confidence!
Not only this, but practically most, if not all, of the AWS services use DynamoDB, including use cases that are usually not for databases, such as multi-tenant job queues (just search "Database as a Queue" to get the sentiment). In fact, it is really really hard to use any relational DB in AWS. I mean, a team would have to go through a CEO approval to get exceptions, which says a lot about the robustness of DDB.
Eh, this isn't accurate. Both Redshift and Aurora/RDS are used heavily by a lot of teams internally. If you're talking specifically about the primary data store for live applications, NoSQL was definitely recommended/pushed much harder than SQL, but it by no means required CEO approval to not use DDB
Edit: It's possible you're limiting your statement specifically to AWS teams, which would make it more accurate, but I read the use of "Amazon" in the quote you were replying to as including things like retail as well, etc.
When I was at AWS, towards later part of my tenure, DynamoDB was mandated for control plane. To be fair, it worked, and worked well, but there were times when I wished I could use something else instead.
Not only this, but practically most, if not all, of the AWS services use DynamoDB, including use cases that are usually not for databases, such as multi-tenant job queues (just search "Database as a Queue" to get the sentiment). In fact, it is really really hard to use any relational DB in AWS. I mean, a team would have to go through a CEO approval to get exceptions, which says a lot about the robustness of DDB.