I think the larger reason being an &quot;AWS expert&quot; is a job description is lock in. If you&#x27;ve hired people who have spent years grokking the AWS names, terminology, and options then your likelihood of switching to anything else is much lower.Not that AWS doesn&#x27;t also enable scaling or something, it just (conveniently) doesn&#x27;t give an option to deploy anything but scalable services you&#x27;ll train your staff on. A lot of the time AWS interfaces&#x2F;offerings are copied not because they were ideal, but because it&#x27;s an easier way to break past that barrier with your offering.

AWS is built for production. It’s complex because it’s designed to create robust environments that can scale almost infinitely, that’s why half of the internet runs on AWS. But to make the most of it, you need to understand how it works and why it’s built that way. That’s why being an “AWS expert” is practically a job description on its own, thats why cloud engineering teams exists, platforms, SRE, etc.For quick and dirty app deployments, though, other vendors like Heroku probably do a better job.

AWS doesn&#x27;t want to avoid details, they want to wallow in them.Technology advances by increasing the number of things a person can achieve without thinking about them. AWS has lots of room for advancement.

AWS Amplify does far too many abstractions and it keeps you on the rails. It’s like AWS Beanstalk

AWS Amplify was supposed to solve this. It is built on the AWS CDK. But I found it too clunky and slow and gave up on it.These days I use SST (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sst.dev">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sst.dev</a>) which is built on top of Pulumi. I find this to be a manageable infrastructure-as-code solution for AWS deployments.

Deploying to Amazon's cloud is a pain in the AWS younger devs won't tolerate