Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S3 isn't getting cheaper

matt-rickard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 215 posts

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#151

Post by pwarner »

aledalgrande wrote: post #49
advisedwang wrote: post #34

Hard disks have been getting larger capacity but i/o capability is fairly flat. The result is that price/GB is dropping but price/iops is not. So _cold_ storage is where you would expect to see pricing fall. I don't follows AWS pricing closely but I've seen a lot of news around Glacier over the year so that might reflect this fact.

There's now a new Glacier product, called Glacier Instant Retrieval, which supposedly makes it cheaper and faster to retrieve from Glacier, if you do it a limited number of times.

Yeah this is magic price wise

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#153

Post by DannyBee »

winkeltripel wrote: post #130
toolz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been 9 antitrust lawsuits filed against big tech in the past two years, what are you suggesting should there be more of?

There should be results. Tech giants are too big to fail, as are the big banks and insurers. If we break up the banks and insurers by product offerings, then why not break up big tech? Each company gets split into 3 smaller firms, each with access to all the IP of the mothership. They get to fight for their customers, and barter over business assets, to figure out who owns what.

I find it so highly ironic that anyone truly believes this would end up better.

They would not fight over customers, in the same way the breakup of AT&T did not result in a fight over customers - only a more complete, nimble, and effective domination of the entire US that lasts to this day.

These companies are hamstrung by their size and internal cultural infighting - you will break them into much more effective units than they can culturally achieve themselves.

The typical trotted out example of Microsoft is an aberration - Microsoft did not believe anything bad would ever happen, was horribly defiant, and refused to prepare. It still bounced back anyway, to a point of serious domination again.

Meanwhile, all of these current tech companies are prepared for this eventuality, as AT&T did.

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#154

Post by hinkley »

luhn wrote: post #106

AWS's pricing strategy changed a few years ago. Previously, they'd drop prices aggressively with much fanfare every time they did. Nowadays, they almost never drop prices, but release new offerings they say will save money [for certain use cases]: - Gravitron 2 is slightly cheaper than Intel instances, with a greater price/performance ratio—at least for some applications. - m6i is same price as m5, but new generation…

It’s noteworthy to me that available memory has not increased in some time. You can find machines with more memory, and perhaps the number of classes has increased, but outside of very narrow envelopes it might be cheaper to have 2 m6i’s with undersubscribed CPUs than to try to increase the amount of cpu per core on something else.

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#155

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

Gigachad wrote: post #139
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except people that use YT as a family video archive

I'm certain that in the ToS they reserve the right to remove any video at any time for any reason. Dumping your family videos on a public video sharing site that you don't pay for and expecting them to exist there forever for free was never a good idea.

Tell that to the people who lose videos that way. Google would consider that a cost (loss of goodwill with a minute set of people).

Idk about YouTube but I know many people whose sole copy of their treasured images is on Facebook.

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#156

Post by skywhopper »

I’m sure AWS’s margins are growing on S3, but to be fair, S3 is more than just raw storage. The majority of the cost and value is the API and the ever-growing features it provides. Those aren’t getting cheaper nearly as fast as the underlying storage hardware is.

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#157

Post by chii »

kortilla wrote: post #126
TimTheTinker wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how every market player is incentivized to behave, apart from regulatory authorities acting to prosecute monopolistic behavior. 1. Price and compete aggressively to grow market share, put competitors out of business, and even transform the market, if possible 2. Once you become the dominant player (i.e. a monopoly), raise prices (or don't lower them) as much as possible without damaging your market position T…

> This is why it's so important, especially in the US, for government to begin aggressively enforcing antitrust law again It already does and it didn’t particularly stop. The problem is that there is no obvious damage to consumers here (what US antitrust law is based on). GCP and Azure are both significant players with similar offerings. The fact that people use proprietary Amazon APIs to manage stuff isn’t a high en…

> A whole generation of engineers is about to relearn the importance of open source

it's not really about open-source, but about inter-operability and open protocols.

Imagine if AOL internet was the defacto standard, and every website is their own walled garden? Oh wait, no we already have that - it's the mobile app ecosystem!

The reason the web is so successful (but not monopolistic) is that the http protocol is open, and the HTML standards are open (at least, until google started meddling now since they are almost a browser monopoly...)

So laws for anti-trust should now take that into account - platform monopolies can be beaten by forcing interoperability via legislation.

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#159

Post by dmw_ng »

mathgladiator wrote: post #65

Has anyone had any direct experience between S3 and Backblaze for the basic usecase of uploading and downloading files? https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html Is just radically different.

B2 isn't great for low latency serving, objects that aren't in hot cache have extremely variable delays on first fetch, and the delay (at least as of a year ago) scales according to object size.

For largeish video (over 500mb) I remember seeing >1 second latency, enough to rule out using it for anything public facing

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#160

Post by vlovich123 »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #103
gsanderson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The margin on bandwidth is enormous. I think Cloudflare did some research into it a while back. But there are rivals providing cheaper S3-compatible storage at scale. Cloudflare's R2 ($15/TB, and no fees for egress). Oracle Cloud Storage ($25/TB, and first 10TB of egress is free). There's Wasabi ($5.99/TB, and no fees for egress or API requests). To name but three. Of course each of those have drawbacks e.g Wasabi is…

I didn't realize Cloudflare R2 was available yet. Took a look based on your mention... "currently in beta". But you can still just sign up and use it already? Anyone here done that and want to report back? Ah, I found this posted by it's author elsewhere in these threads: https://www.vantage.sh/blog/cloudflare-r2-aws-s3-comparison Very useful. Wait.... "no public access" AND "no pre-signed URLs"? Am I misunderstandin…

We do have presigned URLs actually. Public buckets coming soon
Post reply on HN