~~The "100GB is actually only 1GB per region" thing is some sneaky stuff :/~~ Good move on CloudFront though.
I think you misread, it says [emphasis added]:
>100 GB of data per month (up from 1 GB per region)
AWS free tier data transfer expansion
91–100 of 175 posts
Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#92It went from 1GB to 100GB, meanwhile Oracle is offering 10TB on their Free Tier. https://www.oracle.com/cloud/free/
Yeah, but then you have to use Oracle
Can someone educate me on why Oracle is bad? I don’t have much experience with dealing with them as a company. Only used their database before.
Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#93> CloudFront Function
Is this similar to cloudflare workers?
Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#94Interesting timing given https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/the-aws-managed-nat-gatew... just came out. Does this also apply to NAT Gateways?
Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#95As an AWS user I'm a bit disappointed with this. I was hoping their answer would be to cut or eliminated some prices across the board vs just increasing the free tier. I find most apps are pretty binary. Either they are high bandwidth (like video and backups) or not. If you use 1TB there is a good chance you will use 2TB. This will certainly make it less likely for the low bandwidth users to get a surprise bill but i…
Or they want to avoid making pricing more complex than it already is, they do that by significantly marking up egress and using it to cross-subsidize other stuff (like data ingress and internal data transfer), and they've determined that the benefit of that simpler pricing to their other users outweighs the detriment to users with egress-heavy use cases.
I've never operated at Amazons scale so I don't know the wholesale costs involved but at least one estimate puts AWS margins at bandwidth at 99% [1]. And I'm guessing ingress is a fixed cost where they are running nowhere near capacity and that is why it is free. That and they want your data on AWS so they can charge you for storage and when you download it.
I realize business need to make a profit but I don't think AWS is cross-subsidizing. It seems more like there are no loss leaders, they make at least 60% margin on all products (for users not big enough to negotiate rates). They could lower their outbound prices significantly, they just choose not to until the market forces them.
Which is smart business. But I think given Cloud Flare's pressure here, the market is calling for a more aggressive adjustment than just upping the free tier.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/05/how-amazon-web-services-make...
Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that these are not instantaneous. You can still incur charges before the budget action kicks in and terminates your resources.
Ok so how would this work in any other way? Should _every_ S3 action have a `if will_incur_charges() and should_not_incur_charges(): raise Exception()` statement in it's critical path? No, of course not. Everyone get's slower for nobodies benefit. It has to be delayed. But then you run into an issue: what if you end up costing AWS 100$ before the budget action kicks in. Should you not pay that? Why not?
It’s a business decision on AWS’s part. If they want to reduce cognitive load or objection of some customers, they’ll be more willing to “eat it”.
My strong guess is if you had a free account, setup a budget cap, went over it, and they decided to charge you*, a quick email to support would get it waived.
I’m very much a fan of AWS, in part because while they have the chance to uphold the legal terms, my experience is that they’re pretty customer friendly.
* Early on, I had many bills under $1/mo that they just comped without me having to do anything.
Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#97Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has been a while since I messed with the AWS panel, but IIRC you can set budget alerts so you’re notified once a threshold is crossed. It’s not a perfect solution, but if you expect to spend $0 then an alert on $0.01 is pretty trivial to set up and goes a long way to prevent end of the month surprises.
And if you get in a car accident and don't check your email for a few days? It's extremely hard to understand how a company with their resources is able to send a notification but not able to shut it off if that's what the customer wants.
Its not hard to understand at all, they willingly screw over customers, just look at all the posters here falling all over themselves to excuse this blatantly shitty customer hostile behavior.
Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they want to avoid making pricing more complex than it already is, they do that by significantly marking up egress and using it to cross-subsidize other stuff (like data ingress and internal data transfer), and they've determined that the benefit of that simpler pricing to their other users outweighs the detriment to users with egress-heavy use cases.
I've never operated at Amazons scale so I don't know the wholesale costs involved but at least one estimate puts AWS margins at bandwidth at 99% [1]. And I'm guessing ingress is a fixed cost where they are running nowhere near capacity and that is why it is free. That and they want your data on AWS so they can charge you for storage and when you download it. I realize business need to make a profit but I don't think…
An underestimated chunk of AWSs costs is people. They employ >50k people, and likely have a salary bill of several billion dollars, a significant portion of revenue.
50,000 x 250k = 12.5B
Also, they do cross-subsidize, because many AWS services are either hardly used (CodePipeline) or free (CloudFormation) and the cost to run those services is non-negligible.
Re: AWS free tier data transfer expansion
#100So which cloud provider offers a HARD spend limit? I just want to fund my account e.g. $20/month and never, ever, spend a cent over that. Even if my account gets hacked for bitcoin mining or whatever, I don't want to spend a cent over that. With AWS, you can do it, via a trigger on a spend notification and a script, but the whole thing is a giant kludge. It should be a default feature. It should be a default feature…
Not a full "cloud provider" per se, but you might want to check out NearlyFreeSpeech.net[0]. It's fully pay as you go--"If your balance runs out, your web site hosting suspends automatically."
(I should note that I haven't used them myself, I'm just impressed by their website/business model.)