First, people seem to think EC2 saves you time and hassle. Compared to collocated servers, this is true. But compared to dedicated servers, managed or unmanaged, it simply isn't. Hardware fails? They'll replace it (at no cost).
I totally disagree. OK, maybe it takes a bit more time to set everything up, but when you have it all up and running (AMI's, Autoscaling, etc.) you have a robust setup that can scale when you scale (up or down). Adding a new instance literally only takes some minutes. Try that with a dedicated setup. It's more expensive for sure, but comes with a lot of flexibility.
What I see as an EC2 (or AWS in general) issue / challenge is that it's hard to switch providers. When you use S3, SQS, Cloudwatch, Elasticache, Cloudfront, DynamoDB, SES, Route53 your code is totally integrated / adapted to AWS. You can't take your code and deploy it on a different setup elsewhere.
In that case I would say you have architected an app for aws, then, and we should be careful not to do that for portability's sake. Http://www.12factor.net/backing-services
I totally disagree. OK, maybe it takes a bit more time to set everything up, but when you have it all up and running (AMI's, Autoscaling, etc.) you have a robust setup that can scale when you scale (up or down). Adding a new instance literally only takes some minutes. Try that with a dedicated setup. It's more expensive for sure, but comes with a lot of flexibility.
What I see as an EC2 (or AWS in general) issue / challenge is that it's hard to switch providers. When you use S3, SQS, Cloudwatch, Elasticache, Cloudfront, DynamoDB, SES, Route53 your code is totally integrated / adapted to AWS. You can't take your code and deploy it on a different setup elsewhere.