Not everything Amazon does is evil. And not everything Elastic did is good. I highly doubt a lot of people in this thread would sign off that Amazon generally is a good company; it's just that in this case, they're on the right side, in part just because Elastic made it easy to be.

> I’m afraid of the world where we align with the villain on something only because it’s convenient for us.

We're not. We're aligning with them because they happened to do something legitimately good. Being a villain doesn't mean that literally everything you do is bad.

I’m curious though, did Elastic’s license change impact you in anyway? Were you planning on offering Elasticsearch as a managed cloud offering? What exactly is the legitimate good Amazon did here?

I for one was. We have a platform whereby we need to expose logs and metrics to our clients, elastic/open search is a great option for this, unfortunately, being a non-opensource SaaS, elastic's license precludes it. Different discussion as to whether we should pay elastic as we can't afford to, currently.

> Were you planning on offering Elasticsearch as a managed cloud offering?

What can make me certain I won’t ever need it? Ecosystems without monopolies tend to be more robust.

We wanted to have multiple service providers for Elastic. So if one company goes bad or raises prices (be it Elastic or Amazon or something else) we can move to a different one.

No, it doesn't directly impact me, since I'm not planning on offering Elasticsearch as a managed cloud offering. But just because something doesn't benefit me personally doesn't mean that I shouldn't consider it a good thing. For example, I'm not a child and don't have cancer, but I'd still consider it a legitimate good thing if someone donated money to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.