[utrex]

It may cost that much to buy that capacity, but it costs a lot more than that to run the large scale organizations (CAPEX/OPEX) that build and buy these services. You're not just paying for a pipe, you're paying for the corporation.

[kobayashi]

Exactly, I don't know why so many people seem to miss this. The charges may not reflect the cost of that particular service, but if one looks to the service as a whole, it's not that badly priced. Costs cover the infrastructure, which we reasonably expect to contain multiple redundancies, as well as a profit margin for the business.

[johansch]

> You're not just paying for a pipe, you're paying for the corporation.

You are paying their profit margin, yeah.

It is wildly overpriced, no matter how you look at it. Operating costs even when done on a much smaller and more inefficient scale than for AWS do not make the total cost for incremental bandwidth usage THAT much larger.

[cortesoft]

Are there any alternatives for the service that are cheaper, with the same reliability?

[chrismarlow9]

Don't bother, AWS defenders will continue to defend it and replace employees with a larger AWS bill and further lockin until they shoot themselves in the foot.

[jonknee]

A large AWS bill (which actually gets cheaper over time!) is much easier/cheaper to get rid of than employees. AWS also won't get recruited by a competitor and come into your office wanting a ton more money.

[chrismarlow9]

AWS is the employee that sits there and learns the industry and every inch of the system you have for 5 years, and then one day you wake up and they're not at work. You read the news that morning and they just got 50 million to do their version of your company, and way better than yours.

Or they start getting older, don't keep the skills sharp enough, and die off. Now you've got to painfully convince them to help you train a new employee to keep the show running, or pay 10 fold your savings hiring the smartest in the world to fix it. But the systems too big, and by the time it's on the "latest and most popular cloud architecture with proprietary systems", you're irrelevant.

But you're right, they make the companies current CEO/CTO look good by cutting costs in the beginning, so who cares right?

[grkvlt]

I think (based on your child comment too) that you're conflating AWS and Amazon. Amazon sells things and also allows you to sell things, and that creates a conflict of interest, which has apperently caused problems. I am unsure how much of the problem was direct maliciousness on Amazon's part, admittedly - I suspect naivete on the part of some marketplace users, imagining that Amazon would never sell the same product as them, or would never lower the price of a competing product. Certainly it would seem obvious not to try and compete with Amazon on price or availability, you will always lose eventually.

However, AWS is a different thing altogether - it is a set of services that can be used to run parts of your business. Now, if your business involves simply reselling those services, or is predicated the availability and pricing of one of those services being a major part of the value for a service you sell (i.e. the value you add is marginal, with the majority of the product or service's value residing in the service AWS provides) then you are again in a situation where AWS may also decide to offer the same service, and will probably be able to do so more cheaply and profitably.

Again, this would not be a malicious act or directed attack on your business through inside information, and it seems naiive to assume so. You must have been able to determine a market existed and a need could be fulfilled profitably by providing this service, there is no reason a company like AWS could not reach the same conclusion with its vastly larger amount of resources. The possibility of this sort of thing happening should have been determined during due diligence and market analysis anyway, so it should not be a surprise if it happens.

But companies in traditional lines of business using AWS to save money, or using AWS to build a product where the value provided to the customer is inherent in the service provided, not the infrastructure used, are going to be fine. Nobody worries about the electricity company stealing your idea for a product run using electricity...

[balls187]

Hasn't really impacted Netflix and pretty much every other customer using AWS.

[chrismarlow9]

For now. If you want to see the future have a look at the debacle that just went on with prime/appletv/google. If they get a strong enough dominance they will. Given that the IoT is a rising thing, and Amazon is placing itself at the apex of the internets backbone and already has a strangle on the physical goods world, it should be easy to see the next 10 years if it continues. I can see the pitch now... imagine... a world where you can sell your hardware and put your servers all in the same stack! (at least until you POC it for us). If you want to see the future of that, have a look at companies that have had their physical goods ideas stolen and are now mass produced at Amazon for that "everyday low price" (and no that jab at them v walmart isn't an accident).

I was hoping somebody would bring up Netflix. Netflix is AWS's poster child and they know it. They need AWS still just as much as AWS needs them. The statement you just made proves that. They will do everything up to and including take a loss to keep Netflix around. I can assure you that your company will not be getting the same price quote or technical support that Netflix does unless they can bring them just as many sales by being a status symbol and marketing tool for them.

There seems to be a trend of people thinking "AWS is my friend". No. They are a company, and they exist to make money. Have we not all been bitten enough by this thought pattern and loyalty to learn the lesson of "stay flexible"? I'm not advocating that AWS is done away with entirely and nobody should use them ever. I'm advocating that putting your entire stack into their system is a bad idea and that using "black box" software as little as possible is a better approach. When it was just EC2 it was fine, you can build your stuff on an EC2 box with your favorite flavor of *nix and quickly throw boxes up elsewhere if things go south. Now I'm seeing companies put entire critical infrastructures off on Amazon pre built services like they've never seen a tech company go under, or a fad die, or strongarming with brute power.

[Spooky23]

Amazon just went to war with Apple and Google. Do you really think they won't give Netflix the shaft when it suits their strategic interest?

[grantc]

Mainframe Marty shows up.

[chrismarlow9]

Who is mainframe marty?

[azinman2]

What's the alternative?

[faizshah]

Centurylink has a pretty formidable IaaS offering, it's very well priced and they charge very little (comparatively) for bandwidth. The only problem is their storage solution is extremely expensive but using S3 or soon Backblaze B2 as a storage layer is good enough for me.

[grkvlt]

So you're saying S3 is the alternative to S3 ... ?

[faizshah]

I said their IaaS is a cheaper alternative to AWS IaaS with the exception of their S3 alternative. I suggested B2 is the cheapest alternative to S3 do you have a suggestion?

[kordless]

The Intercloud.

[guimarin]

You're right, AWS just breaks even with their pricing.