You're exactly right. Human time will almost always cost more than hosting.
I'll add that "serverless" is not always cheaper than traditional hosting. By the time you hook up all the services, and require more usage than the free tier but less than the high volume discount tiers, you could end up spending around the same. The cost savings really depend on the use cases.
I'm a father of four. I started out as a self-taught programmer, completed a B.S. in Computer Science and am currently employed full-time since 1998.
I also own a small mobile software company.
Don't forget that going serverless, in its current state, is also handing control over to a few companies (primarily GCP, Azure and AWS). Hosted servers give you a little more control and the freedom to jump ship to another host if something goes wrong (or prices increase).
I run technology at Ingenious, an agency specializing in building products for the healthcare industry. 💛 remote work ‧ sometimes 🔨 are the best tool for the job.
You're exactly right. Human time will almost always cost more than hosting.
I'll add that "serverless" is not always cheaper than traditional hosting. By the time you hook up all the services, and require more usage than the free tier but less than the high volume discount tiers, you could end up spending around the same. The cost savings really depend on the use cases.
Don't forget that going serverless, in its current state, is also handing control over to a few companies (primarily GCP, Azure and AWS). Hosted servers give you a little more control and the freedom to jump ship to another host if something goes wrong (or prices increase).
I agree with you. It's not something I think every day, but it's definitely true that we have less players for serverless than for regular servers.