I share the view that nobody avoids an exit or migration because of egress fees. In fact, for online migrations the period of replicating data between providers might go on for months.
But all cloud providers leverage The Principle of data locality or data gravity, which states that compute benefits from being close to the stored data. If a customer moves the data elsewhere it follows that the compute will soon leave too.
The elephant in the room: Will Spotify survive the coming wave of generative AI audio content? Wasn't any mentioning on that in the letter.
Seems to me like they would need to ditch a lot of silly investments like original content, platform engineering on Kubernetes and scaled agile which together carry costs in the range of $100s millions, to free up resources to battle new disruptive technologies.
Correct. It's also the case that human generated requests will lose their relevance within seconds, a quick retry is all it's worth. As for machine generated requests a dead letter queue would make more sense, poor engineered backend services would OOM and well-engineered would load shed, if the requests are queued on the application servers they are doomed to be lost anyway.
I think there is another side to this story which is that referral marketing is having a bad name these days. It's considered fraudulent by many sellers since sometimes these referral sites rank higher than the sellers themselves. I suspect this is part of an effort from Google to put the sellers higher than the referrers in the search results.
But all cloud providers leverage The Principle of data locality or data gravity, which states that compute benefits from being close to the stored data. If a customer moves the data elsewhere it follows that the compute will soon leave too.