Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, they don't have a sales force like Amazon. A bunch of non-engineer humans who do nothing but convince other people to buy their product. Here's the catch, the "bunch of non-engineer humans" as you called them are not stupid though. All around these people are watching the landscape and market. They are aware that GCP has a superior pricing structure and can be up to 50% cheaper[1]. Therefore my theory is that…
"The numbers given in this article do not account for any AWS reservation. However, they all account for Google sustained use discount (30% automatic discount on instances that ran for the entire month)." I'll never understand why people keep referencing that 50% cheaper article. They take into account the 30% monthly discount from Google, but ignore the 47% discount I currently get from Amazon by reserving my instan…
I just finished researching pricing on AWS/GCP for my team - and I found that generally AWS matches GCP pricing (sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower) if you can commit to 1 year.
From what I found through my research, the only way to achieve a significant reduction in price relative to GCP is if you can commit to 3 years on AWS.
However, I found it somewhat difficult to compare apples to apples - as it can be difficult to match CPU and RAM - I had to settle for close enough. There is a very big difference in network bandwidth allowances per type - with GCP being far more generous. Load balancing offerings differ greatly - with GCP seeming much more modern in design (HA, geo-load balancing, anycast static ip, etc.). My point here being that our analysis took into account price as well as other factors.