Say what you want about the whole Wikileaks affair, but regardless of where you stand, Amazon's sense of timing seems really bad. Couldn't they at least have waited a week after they declined to host Wikileaks?
People will undoubtedly tie the two things together, and Wikileaks supporters will make a big effort to point out Amazon's recent misstep.
I would probably have waited just a couple of days or weeks before this recent event was out of most people's minds.
Not immediately, no. You can't really just stop using AWS and switch overnight. In the long term, this will factor in decisions whether to expand on AWS or for someone starting new, just like other factors like price, benfits, and lock-in.
I would say it perfectly displays what wikileaks was for them: just another regular client and they are not going to bend over just for one "small fish", no matter how beloved and important this one fish is amongst the tech savvy crowd.
I think it's important to separate a rejection from a termination. Apparently, Wikileaks has been hosted on EC2 for over a month[1], which makes Amazon's decision a termination instead of a rejection.
I could also understand if Amazon didn't notice Wikileaks for a few days, but weeks?
Getting rejected poses no problem for anyone; there are grey areas, and everyone needs to draw a line.
But getting pulled after being hosted for several weeks? What changed?
Amazon pulling Wikileaks has created a Damoclean sword in the minds of people who consider to use AWS in the future.
People will undoubtedly tie the two things together, and Wikileaks supporters will make a big effort to point out Amazon's recent misstep.
I would probably have waited just a couple of days or weeks before this recent event was out of most people's minds.