Serverless in the cloud: AWS vs. Google Cloud vs. Microsoft Azure

If you’ve ever been woken up at 3 a.m. because a server went haywire, you’ll understand the appeal of a buzzword like “serverless.” The machines can take hours, days, or sometimes even weeks to configure and then they need to be updated constantly to fix bugs and security holes. These updates usually bring hassles of their own because the new updates cause incompatibilities forcing other updates or so it seems ad infinitum.

The endless chain of headaches from running a server is one of the reasons that major cloud companies have embraced the “serverless” architecture. They know that the boss has heard the excuses—the server this, the server that—for far too long. If we could only get rid of those servers, the boss must think.

It’s a wonderful sales term with the only problem being it’s not strictly true. These apps are serverless in the same way that restaurants are kitchenless. If what you want is on the menu and you like how the cook prepares it, sitting down in a restaurant is great. But if you want a different dish, if you want different spices, well, you better get your own kitchen.

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are three of the bigger companies that are battling to host applications of the future, ones that they hope will be written to their serverless API and managed through their automation layer. If the platforms do what you want—and the new models are pretty general—they can be the simplest and fastest way to create your own multibillion dollar unicorn web app. You write only the crucial bits of logic and the platform handles all of the details.

No Comments, Be The First!

Your email address will not be published.