Part of the issue is that their sales pitch to get management to onboard is full of outright lies. They have one chart that basically shows that they are the leading cloud provider, beating out AWS and Azure.
As a software engineer I called them out on their bullshit right away. Sure, you can build pages on Salesforce, similar to SharePoint and some other CMS products, but it is NOT a platform that is truly competing with AWS or Azure.
Management still proceeded to go full hog into Salesforce as our “development platform” and pay consultants 300$ an hour to build shit solutions that should have just been built with standard languages on real cloud platforms. I left that dumpster file shortly after.
Now it almost seems like Salesforce is a joke in the industry, since many companies made those same mistakes and got stuck with huge bills and having to eventually back out. It doesnt help them that they basically priced themselves out of the CRM space, by trying to get you to build everything on their “platform”.
I sincerely appreciate your insight and anecdotes, as I have not had to live with Sf myself. I am too ignorant of the Sf platform to make an intelligent criticism of it, but I would be extremely surprised if it can do even half of what AWS can. I would be surprised if they are even trying to. So it does sound like sales pitch BS to me as well.
I’m not an AWS fanboy and don’t mean to sound like one. However, the number of products and services, and the sophistication of them, is fairly mind-blowing. And they add new stuff almost every week. It’s also expensive and monopolistic, so I don’t mean to praise them too much here.
They are probably different animals in some respects. On AWS, you can let them host basically every layer if you want, or you can let them only host the lower layers (VM and OS, for example) while you manage everything else (runtime, app, DB, etc). And there’s many blended models of both approaches. And it offers a lot of redundancy of choice on various things like databases, operating systems, containers, etc. It is extremely flexible and has a high level of granularity on how you set things up. It requires a lot training, admin overhead, budgeting, and monitoring. It’s expensive AF. And somehow they act like they are losing money, too, and laid a bunch of people off. Whatever, Amazon.
Azure is fairly similar to AWS in most respects, however it offers far less features and products (and is generally cheaper per hour). I have only messed around in Azure a little, I am not an expert in it by any means.
All 3 have certification programs, of course.
Taking a guess here that Salesforce tries to appeal to larger businesses that don’t want to get their hands very dirty managing many of the layers themselves. AWS and Azure market to businesses that need more flexibility and have a more complex mix of existing infrastructure.
As for Google cloud, I know zero about it other than the few things I personally use like Drive, etc.
Part of the issue is that their sales pitch to get management to onboard is full of outright lies. They have one chart that basically shows that they are the leading cloud provider, beating out AWS and Azure.
As a software engineer I called them out on their bullshit right away. Sure, you can build pages on Salesforce, similar to SharePoint and some other CMS products, but it is NOT a platform that is truly competing with AWS or Azure.
Management still proceeded to go full hog into Salesforce as our “development platform” and pay consultants 300$ an hour to build shit solutions that should have just been built with standard languages on real cloud platforms. I left that dumpster file shortly after.
Now it almost seems like Salesforce is a joke in the industry, since many companies made those same mistakes and got stuck with huge bills and having to eventually back out. It doesnt help them that they basically priced themselves out of the CRM space, by trying to get you to build everything on their “platform”.
I sincerely appreciate your insight and anecdotes, as I have not had to live with Sf myself. I am too ignorant of the Sf platform to make an intelligent criticism of it, but I would be extremely surprised if it can do even half of what AWS can. I would be surprised if they are even trying to. So it does sound like sales pitch BS to me as well.
I’m not an AWS fanboy and don’t mean to sound like one. However, the number of products and services, and the sophistication of them, is fairly mind-blowing. And they add new stuff almost every week. It’s also expensive and monopolistic, so I don’t mean to praise them too much here.
They are probably different animals in some respects. On AWS, you can let them host basically every layer if you want, or you can let them only host the lower layers (VM and OS, for example) while you manage everything else (runtime, app, DB, etc). And there’s many blended models of both approaches. And it offers a lot of redundancy of choice on various things like databases, operating systems, containers, etc. It is extremely flexible and has a high level of granularity on how you set things up. It requires a lot training, admin overhead, budgeting, and monitoring. It’s expensive AF. And somehow they act like they are losing money, too, and laid a bunch of people off. Whatever, Amazon.
Azure is fairly similar to AWS in most respects, however it offers far less features and products (and is generally cheaper per hour). I have only messed around in Azure a little, I am not an expert in it by any means.
All 3 have certification programs, of course.
Taking a guess here that Salesforce tries to appeal to larger businesses that don’t want to get their hands very dirty managing many of the layers themselves. AWS and Azure market to businesses that need more flexibility and have a more complex mix of existing infrastructure.
As for Google cloud, I know zero about it other than the few things I personally use like Drive, etc.