What needs improvement with Amazon AWS?

I think Amazon AWS could be improved cost-wise, as the expenses can be considerable. There is Azure integration that many people use, with many organizations using Active Directory as a backend service. Amazon AWS has Cognito, but people still depend on Microsoft Azure AD integration. Those aspects could be integrated into Amazon AWS itself without depending on Microsoft Active Directory. Additionally, pricing is an area where Amazon AWS could provide more flexible options, especially when compared to Google Cloud, which offers more flexible options comparatively. Amazon AWS should revisit the pricing options and adopt more flexible strategies, allowing for increased usage and not restricting services to paying users only.

Sometimes the costs associated with spinning up a service, especially managed services, have implications. For example, if I create a Glue job, that will create S3 buckets and other resources that have cost implications, but once I clean up a Glue job, it does not delete the other accessory resources. Sometimes, I have to go hunting for what resources Amazon AWS might have provisioned and how it is costing behind the scenes. It can be complex depending on your level of expertise. It is not as easy to get started, especially when it comes to secure practices. Amazon AWS is more hands-on than other platforms.

They need to improve the engines' availability of services since they have been reducing that availability. They have increased the durability, but when it comes to eleven nines, they have made it ten nines. When using scripts for APIs to fetch data, they don't match the data exactly with the request. If something matches with certain data in the API, they share the complete information. For example, if you request instance-related details for PostgreSQL, RDS, and they have Aurora PostgreSQL, they will also share the details for Aurora PostgreSQL, which may not be relevant as the person is only asking for PostgreSQL.

Amazon AWS could improve its user interface to make it more user-friendly, especially for people who are not highly technical. A more intuitive, wizard-based approach could simplify and speed up the configuration process.

Recently, new dashboards have been launched. This new UI is an improvement that they have made.

AWS should reduce its cost to become more affordable for small-scale organizations. Currently, it is considered expensive compared to Azure and Google Cloud.

There are plenty of areas for improvement. For example, the ease of tagging could be improved. The tool could integrate AI tools to identify better and manage costs. Calculating the cost of some services could be more straightforward.

AWS could benefit from being more cloud-agnostic. This means allowing customers to easily migrate their workloads and applications built on AWS services to other hyperscalers if needed. Currently, the architecture feels closed, making it difficult for customers to move to different cloud providers seamlessly. One of the issues I'm facing is that my RDS SQL Server version 5.8 is reaching its end of life, and I need to upgrade it to a customer-wanted version. I want to do this on Graviton instances, but Graviton only starts with version 8.0 and currently doesn't support the 5.8 series. We've raised a Priority Feature Request (PFR) with AWS to have this functionality added for at least three months. This would give us enough time to upgrade our database to the 8.0 version without any issues.

The improvement should be done as per business needs.

The cost of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

Their performance could be improved. It would be beneficial to focus on enhancing services and delivering improved options at a faster pace. Support response times can be improved, especially in areas where faster assistance is crucial. Currently, responses tend to be somewhat delayed. The pricing structure could be enhanced.

IAM must be made simple and straightforward. It is a little bit complicated compared to GCP.

Amazon AWS should integrate AI capabilities.

The product should reduce carbon emissions.

Instead of using some third-party solutions, Amazon should include them as part of its offering. Currently, we are using some third-party services for various purposes. Amazon can acquire those open-source products and provide them with managed services.

The customization could improve. However, it depends on the customization needed. To enhance its capabilities, Amazon AWS should improve its integration with other digital security platforms and solutions, especially those used by companies in domains, such as banking, financial services, and insurance. While Amazon AWS has its own solution, there are many other initial vendor companies that perform exceptionally well. Therefore, it is crucial for Amazon AWS to have better integration with those platforms and solutions, including how to host and integrate them with the rest of the Amazon AWS services. Although Amazon AWS has its strengths, it doesn't always work seamlessly for customers, making it a significant obstacle to migrating applications to Amazon AWS. Rather than focusing on developing new features, Amazon AWS could better serve its customers by supporting these existing solutions in the digital security space. There are many excellent encryption solutions available, along with many other solutions. By supporting these solutions and offering easy integration, Amazon AWS can create a win-win situation for its customers.

I am not an expert in AWS, nor do I work in the dev-ops department, so I might not be the best person to ask this question. It could be made cheaper. I know we spend a lot of money each month on AWS.

We would like the system documentation for configuring this solution to be improved, in order to provide better process clarity. Similarly, we would like more templates to be available to download for performance-oriented architecture, so that we can re-purpose them for our environment.

The interface needs a bit of work. It's not intuitive. The solution's initial setup can be complex.

We have a very good approach internally with what we have developed. It involved overcoming some hurdles regarding the single point of truth or single point of configuration, which is sometimes not that easy for AWS. There are dashboards and you have your web service, but bringing all these together and orchestrating is sometimes quite difficult.

Recently tried the boot on the desktop, which is where you create a virtual desktop, on a laptop for example. You provide this, and you can use a laptop on the cloud and have everything safe, without having to purchase an expensive laptop. When I tried with another company, from Azure, which uses the same thing, that with the boot as desktop they had some work needed to make some changes to the AWS desktop. They are not as flexible or powerful as a platform as Azure on this subject. Previously, they had great VoIP software that they used in AWS, and when I created an account, they didn't have the option to assign too many numbers, local numbers, that could be used for hosting. In terms of improvement, they should try to give more emphasis to the VoIP system.

The price could be reduced. It is difficult to hand over legacy applications when migrating them to the cloud. It's a challenge.

AWS has room for improvement on the Kubernetes side. I would like to go a little deeper into the Kubernetes target, Elastic, inner system, and all that. The EKS, target, and all these areas need to be improved, but that is not my key area because I am mostly working on the application side. However, I sometimes still need to work with Kubernetes container management.

The dashboard can be improved a little bit to provide more information.

I think that the interface could be improved. Additionally, they lack good connectors with services within other clouds. For example, it does not integrate well with Power BI which is a Microsoft service. Sometimes, some of their services can be too complex/technical. It's almost like they tried taking a microservice approach meanwhile the users want a little more integration In other words the multi-cloud approach is not robustly promoted as there is a noticeable difference in ease of use.

I'd love to see an Amazon data center here in Peru.

On the console, they used to have some shortcuts making this solution easier to work with, but now we have been dealing with so many problems on the console, and some of the options are not very useful in my perspective, so they should bring back those options that make things easier to run some of the services. Most of the time the options are pre-selected, or you have to go with the default settings, but from my perspective, there are some services which are now more complicated to use than before. An additional feature I'd like to see in the future is more integration with public repositories, though some use their own repositories for security purposes, but I think it'll be easier to deploy services through public repositories.

AWS could use better integration with other products and clouds. Multi-cloud is an important solution for cost savings.

While feasible, custom configuration will be more time consuming than standard, although we have not encountered many instances which required us to seek support or advice.

Personally, I need to improve myself in terms of the knowledge I have around the product. My goal is to maybe get certified in order to understand it better. It would be helpful if they would be able to provide me with more certification information. It's a good platform. I don't have any issues with it at the moment. It would be ideal if they could provide automatic health reports. That way, I would be able to understand at a glance the state of my services at any given time.

Amazon AWS could be improved by lowering the general storage price.

I think Amazon could improve some of the security or fine-grained access for metadata and many other things. From a cloud standpoint, Amazon provides more ways to restrict access or provide fine-grained access to different services. For the time being, I think the ecosystem is relatively secure, but there is room for improvement.

Some of the services are hard to use so I think a more user-friendly interface would be helpful.

With regards to improving the service, I don't see any room for improvement at this time. I love the technology, it is a very good public cloud offering with very good services. Until now, there are no services that I don't like. One other aspect, it would be good to see the basic service level improved with regards to response time. They don't offer 24-hour support.

Amazon AWS could improve on security.

Amazon tools are for more mature DevOps. The process and the Dev is very good, but it doesn't compare to the ease of using the Google Cloud Platform. Google Cloud Platform is easier for the developer since it has many automation features. You can use the many tools to automate your info or create machines. Personally, I like using both.

It's too early to say what needs to be improved, as we went live only at the beginning of this year. We started last year and went live at the beginning of this year, so it's still a work in progress. In terms of additional features we'd like to see, the one thing that comes to mind is better integration with Oracle. We have a lot of Oracle databases, and there is no other option to either migrate to PaaS, stay on-prem, or use Oracle Private Cloud. So better integration with Oracle is something we are looking into. It's the same story with AWS or Azure.

As a result of the competency, I believe that most people are now leaning toward Azure rather than AWS. That is also according to Gartner's forecast, more people are turning to Microsoft Azure. The price could be better.

The sorting model in AWS is a little bit complicated. When you are going through any component, you can get some surprising results.

The solution could improve by being more secure.

The price of the solution is comparatively quite high in comparison with that of Azure.

The price could be better.

The usability of the solution could be a bit better.

I cannot recall feeling there were any features missing. There is a bit of a learning curve. That said, it's likely no different than learning any other cloud. The pricing could be a bit lower, even though its costs are in the middle of the road.

AWS cloud has an issue with accessibility to the customer, it's very limited and if there's an internal issue, we won't know about it because they don't expose their APIs to many things. This is a generic cloud problem for all cloud products. It's not just AWS. It's Azure, Google, all of them have the same problem. They will never give you any information, and you can't even check their logs properly. That kind of transparency issue is critical because whether I'm using their infrastructure or not, I should have visibility with regard to what is happening in my network. I'd like to see compatibility extended to include additional applications which are widely used but not compatible on the public cloud. Without them, you can't build the ecosystems for each and every thing. I realize there are so many applications around and you can't source everything but I'd like to see additional compatibility. The solution has some limitations because you won't have the space for some of the applications. For example, Google is the only provider with a VMware product line. Some of the applications still need a physical server.

The pricing is reasonable but there is always room to be better. If it was offered for free, it would be better.

In IBM we have IM, identity access management. For all the solutions in AWS, identity access is not quite so straightforward. Identity and access management on AWS could be made to be much more straightforward. That is something that they could work on. If they could work on that and use it for load balancing, that would be ideal.

They're really good on the business computing side, but there are other services where they can do really well. They can improve the data analytics platform and the data warehousing platform. Its pricing can be simplified a little bit more.

I cannot recall coming across any issues or any missing features. There are some other issues I see, but that was more on the security side, not on EC2. That's more of a technical thing. I was not able to get it up and running, however, that was a different issue altogether. It was more due to my understanding of the solution. I want to use AWS as a full solution for my website - for domain and website hosting, and everything in between - however, I was not able to find everything together. They should work to make it an easy all-in-one end-to-end solution. The product is a bit costly.

It would be better if there was a way to see which components were still on. We have some situations where I forget that some components are turned on. We forget some components are on, and we only see that these components are on when we see the bill at the end of the month. It would also be better if AWS had specialized firewalls or integrations with leading products. For example, a specialized firewall with content filtering. We were looking for some firewall tools, and we saw that AWS doesn't have any specialized firewall tools in its services portfolio. So, we are looking for other tools like FortKnox, Forcepoint, and Check Point because we didn't find the solutions in AWS services.

Its price should be lower. The price for in-house usage should be different from production usage.

We have had some difficulty figuring out how to monitor how many EC2 instances have been networked into our entire enterprise. We usually try to create a diagram outside of AWS. The types of information we are trying to determine are, for example, what hardware devices are interconnected, and when was the interconnection made. It is difficult to extrapolate budgeting costs and schedules from the information gathered from the usage of the solution in our systems. We are given a large lump sum of money at the beginning of the year for our budget but it is hard to summarize costs to put down on paper for justification or projections.

Monitoring still needs to be improved. Better support for Windows Operating Systems would be appreciated. It is good for Linux but needs to improve for Windows.

I think the solution could be more user-friendly, like Microsoft products. They could include a lot more applications and make free resources available. I'd like to see more code application within AWS to build modern and good applications. A lot of cases we deal with need to write a lot of code in AWS and it would be helpful if there were designer functionalities.

The solution could always be further improved on the commercial side of things. Amazon Web Services are not cheap. It would be ideal if it was less expensive for the customer.

We have had several issues with the products and services but as of now, there are no good alternatives.

One feature I would like to see is to have a better or a more user-friendly web console. The web console of AWS is not so user-friendly. They can make it more user-friendly, which will be good for administrators or users of AWS.

I think the product could be improved by simplifying the configuration. I would also like to see a reporting feature included, like you find in SQL Server.

There are some subjective pain points, but we are pretty satisfied.

It just needs to be improved from the security perspective.

The price needs improvement.

The cost management is too complex right now. The pricing of AWS is very unclear. They make it quite confusing. They need to make the cost structure easier to understand.

The pricing of the solution could be better. It's a little pricey.

The price could be better. Support for data analytics could be better. I don't see much support for data analytics. They have a lot of support in Azure, but I don't see a lot of innovation on the data analytics side in AWS.

In terms of technical features, I don't see anything missing. The only two points in favor of other providers are the price and local support. The main problem that we see here in Brazil is the price. It is much more expensive than any other cloud provider. Their local support can also be better. We get more support from some of the other providers here in Brazil as compared to AWS.

They could lower the cost. The setup could also be easier.

Working with AWS requieres your organization to invest in training your team to better use and take advantaje of all that AWS has to offer.

The pricing could be a bit high at times. It's something they could improve upon. We aren't missing any features right now. For us, the solution is perfect as it is. We don't feel anything is lacking.

The dashboard and interface need improvement. It could be more user-friendly.

The security right now needs improvement. It's not bad, per se. It's just that there's always room for improvement in security. I'd love to see guarding duties enhanced. The pricing could be a bit better. It's something that can always be improved upon.

There are some areas that are not great. For example, with some Microsoft technologies such as .NET, you will have a difficult time deploying it on AWS. It works very well with open-source solutions like Java, but not with .NET technologies. I would like to see more alerts added to the system. Preemptive alerts would be very good. It is something that happens and you have to do a lot of configuration at that time, which can be complex.

There's always room for improvement, however, they're building out new products. The problem with AWS is you have to keep up with the technology. If you don't stay up to date with the technology and its latest changes then you won't know what to use in your infrastructure. For example, as soon as you finish building one thing, then they've already updated to something new. They're always continually updating, rebranding, and rebuilding. They tend to oversell before a product is ready. The solution needs to have more security features continuously added to it. It would be ideal if they could continue to build a more hybrid collaborative solution - something that allows users to be on-prem, on cloud, or wherever they need to be to build. I'm looking for more AWS to Microsoft (or AWS to Linux) authentication solutions. There are a lot of management requirements. You need to manage every aspect surrounding the solution, and it can sometimes be a lot.

From a technology standpoint, the solution is almost perfect. We don't feel that anything is lacking in that sense. The feedback we are getting from our customers, especially here in Turkey where the exchange rate fluctuates regularly, is that the solution is quite expensive. Other cloud competitors are less costly. From our country's point of view, I would say that it needs to be cheaper. When the solution faces downtime, it can be for hours or half a day. This is far too long.

Its interface could be better because there are so many services right now in the product that it is quite difficult to navigate around in this. Its interface could be a subject of improvement.

There have been some issues in the past when it comes to file integrations in AWS's cloud products. However, there are now alternative solutions out there that are helping to integrate them all. One thing is that sometimes it becomes a problem when troubleshooting our tools because when you have some things local and some things remote on a foreign server, it can get complicated. We find that sometimes it's a challenge to gather the necessary information from logs and such because you need the proper agreement to capture those details. In the future, I would like to see Amazon move more into local clouds, by capturing more of the small market. Nowadays, spending a lot of money is not on the list of priorities for many companies, especially considering what's going on in the world. We want to leverage whatever amount is available and still get all the benefits of new AWS cloud offerings.

They currently have fewer regions in Asia, especially in India, China, and other places. They can maybe put more data centers in this region.

I haven't delved down deep enough into the solution in order to come up with an answer for what may be lacking. The only real downside to AWS is they can easily shut you down if they want to. Clients ask us "Well, what happens if I go and put this on AWS and they don't like me for some screwy reason and all of a sudden they shut me down, they've killed my entire company?" While AWS often is at the top of my list to recommend to people, I always have to tell them, "Hey, you got to be careful because if they don't like you, they can shut you down in a heartbeat. And they can kill an entire company by doing that."

The customization could be improved.

At times we find ourselves a little trapped, with the lack of customization, for what we need. That doesn't mean that the tool is lacking it means that we are trying to be more creative than the tool and the rest of the market. In cases like this, it is we who need to revise our plans.

The overall convenience and the ease to use could be improved. Right now, for example, we still have an integrator that helps us. They help us do the so-called hand-holding to get us started. Once we start, we can train up staff and we can manage most of the operations ourselves. It's just that first little bit that's difficult to handle alone.

One of the things we are concerned about is the amount of memory because when we deploy the products, we have to make sure that the client has sufficient resources. It should be easier to monitor the performance and generate analytic information so that we can determine how to provide better support for our clients. I believe that they have a lot of information available, so maybe they can have better analytic reporting.

I think the price can be improved. The price is high now, and Amazon's web portal can be improved.

I would appreciate more direct support from AWS. I have some good personal contacts with AWS and through that, I am able to get some help. But, on a professional level with a small to medium-sized enterprise that needs any direct support from AWS, it is not supported. It is typically a part of the business model. They encourage you to go through one of their Implementation partners.

Recently we had a long conversation about functionality that is missing in Alexa — in Mexico, specifically. Alexa for Business is a service and platform that Americans can use to make a call to an Amazon Echo device or a telephone via the app. But in Mexico, we are not allowed to use that technology. This is a significant disadvantage of AWS for those living in Mexico. I also think that Amazon Rekognition could be improved. For example, I have used Rekognition to label things like trucks, buses, etc. Then we put a camera in front of a bus, so that we can send notifications if the bus driver overtakes another car on the wrong side of the road. However, it seems that Rekognition's machine learning doesn't yet have the capabilities needed to make this kind of labeling and recognition system work properly. Thus, we've had to resort to alternative solutions. And in terms of how easy it is to learn, Amazon doesn't have the most friendly educational platform. It is very obtuse, in fact. I have wasted a lot of time and effort studying through the official channels, so now I mostly use Udemy courses instead. They are very practical and much simpler, but I would still prefer to learn from the official educational platform if it were improved.

Our use case is limited to virtual services and RPA development. We are not using it quite heavily, and there are not many issues or problems so far. However, it would be great if it could be integrated with more AI features and proactive monitoring. It could also have more automatic capacity expansion features. For example, when renting out some space, memory, or computing power, the service can have the capacity to expand by itself without being manually handled by us.

The pricing structure can be improved and made more straightforward. There are so many options, and you have to make several choices before confirming the final cost.

The user interface (UI) needs improvement. Right now, it's not the best. The product's authentication method could be better. The pricing model could have a more competitive edge. It would be great, in a future release, if the solution offers unified hybrid management, or hybrid cloud management.

The cost should be reduced. They should have a better big data stack.

The activation process can be improved. Sometimes, the activation takes a lot of time. There are many components of the infrastructure. Integration with in-house applications could be simplified.

There should be seminars and online training sessions available from AWS because a lot of people who are not using it would benefit from having the basic knowledge or basic hands-on experience. If they gain experience with it, then they will be happy to use it in the future. Training could be in the form of more documentation or training videos. Any increase would make this solution easier to handle.

The IEM (Infrastructure Event Management) appears to be complicated, specifically cross-account resource permissions. It's a bit complicated to implement and to understand. It requires a lot of heavy lifting. I am not exactly sure if we implemented it poorly, or it is the same. Cross-validation and logging-in are areas that need improvement. There are many variables involved in pricing the service in AWS and overall, the pricing is a bit on the higher side. If the variable in pricing could be simplified, that will also help. Sometimes, we don't use these cost optimization tools.

It's very easy to configure and to use the platform, but we would like to be notified about our consumption. The consumption is a critical point for us because we are not always using the platform, but sometimes we receive high charges — high amounts of money for services that we didn't even use during that month, for instance. I would like to receive some alerts when my consumption is getting out of the normal range.

User personalization and robotic process automation services need to be mature enough. More APIs are required for robotic process automation services. Azure is more mature in terms of user personalization and robotic process automation services. The document processing can also be better. Whenever we want to do any kind of document management, I try to do OCR, ICR, etc. The functionality in AWS has to be more like that.

It's not our favorite for sure. Some of their well-listed services are not super configurable — at least to the extent that we would like to configure and customize them. Some of them are not that considerable as per our requirements. We have tried Dropbox and some other solutions as well, including One Drive, Dropbox, etc. It seems as if some of those solutions can be configured and customized a little more — like it's built into their fabric. AWS doesn't have that feel, but understandably, as they're such a behemoth. They still haven't managed to crack some of the advanced think features, which are important especially if you're dealing with Mongo or any of the databases which are sort of non-sequel — like non-relational databases. They have some sync related problems that we had noticed that we are trained to work around. Those are some of the things that our development team is struggling with.

One area that could be improved is in data management. They could improve on the data side. For example, I see others with better cloud services and larger data computing capabilities.

One of the problems that I have seen is that some of the products are not as mature as others. For example, their API Gateway is not as mature as Kong, and their version control system is not at mature as GitHub. It's the same thing with their databases like DynamoDB, which is not as mature as MongoDB. Once we have equality in products between on-premises and cloud, this system will be a very good proposition.

I'm just bugged by the charges that I'm not really able to manage. If there is so much little stuff, that I enabled from time to time, then I get lost. And then I tend to forget about that. It would be better if there was a corresponding notification as well. I would like to see a notification indicating you have not used this instance. You might want to turn it off so as not to incur the cost or something like that. But because most of my usage is charged to my credit card. It's disappointing and frustrating at times. If they could provide some kind of entry point. Something similar to WordPress where small businesses could have an easy way to come up with a site that could behosted immediately.

When it was only Amazon AWS in the market, no one was concerned about the pricing. However, now that there are so many competitors, there is more comparison for cloud service providers. They should look into reducing the price of this solution to stay competitive. It would be a benefit. The current trend is multi-cloud. They can launch the Oracle service in Azure, and we expect that this should be possible in Amazon AWS as well. I would like to see better integration between Oracle and AWS.

I have found some problems related to the database. The price of this solution could be reduced to make it more competitive. There are some limitations for certain applications that happen regionally and it is an issue for us. If we work with an application that is set up in New York, for example, then it has to be able to work in Pakistan.

The biggest area for improvement is the fact that there are a vast amount of tools. The best way to describe it is this: you have lots of Lego pieces, hundreds of Lego pieces, but they all do something specific. However, it's very difficult to understand the purpose of these tools, how are they fit into our environment, our design ideas, etc. To assemble all of these tools, to make them fit into the architectural vision of the company, is very difficult. This is especially true for a startup that doesn't have unlimited resources for research and study. We cannot comprehend the vast amount of information that Amazon produces. The pricing is very confusing. They should really consolidate and make things simpler rather than offer you hundreds of random options. The way everything is arranged really forces users to figure out everything on their own and then, on top of that, to calculate the total costs. There's an infinite number of combinations even just with cost calculations. It's too much.

This solution would be improved with the inclusion of hybrid Kubernetes management.

An easier way to determine estimated costs quickly would be helpful.

There's not specific things for improvement but that being said, they can improve the overall process and features of the product and to enhancement the stability.

* I would like to see Lambda (code storage management), which means being able to increase our code storage limit through support. * Another example which is Simple Queue Service (SQS) event for Lambda: to be able to see support for SQS message events with Lambda.

The rate of new services and features released by AWS has dramatically accelerated. AWS should provide even more support and engagement to accelerate adoption.

In the next editions, the use of this tool should be extended to Google and Apple operating systems.

The AWS documentation is written in a way that is not very intuitive. That's an area they can improve.

More complete, specific training for many of the technologies, specifically with Python Django and the CMS (Mezzanine).