[nemonemo]

I think the point is that the cost should not be the main motivator. I would agree that there needs to be other differentiators in addition to cost, which could provide sufficient moat against other competitors, big or small.

[jessriedel]

It's possible that there could be non-obvious innovations in how to save money with a low reliability threshold, which Amazon might not be able to effortlessly copy.

[res0nat0r]

It should also be noted that you can get S3 storage for $1/TB/month already if you use the Glacier Deep Archive storage class.

[paulryanrogers]

Did that include network IO to retrieve your data?

[notyourday]

Nope. That's what actually kills you on Amazon - network costs.

[Dylan16807]

It's... interesting... that Amazon offers reasonably priced bandwidth on Lightsail, but it's against the TOS to use it in connection with other services.

[notyourday]

Yeah, I have been proxy accessing my personal S3 that way, but I'm not really willing to bet a business on it.

[zadokshi]

Not really. Have you ever done the maths on what it costs to recover 1TB in a recovery situation.

Definitely not worth it.

[Dylan16807]

Putting it into normal S3 only costs $2.50 a TB. That's very affordable.

To get out of Amazon entirely, they definitely want to gouge you, but it's not the end of the world. If $24 a year is an acceptable storage price, then Snowball export costing somewhere around $36/TB in bulk isn't too awful. (And if you don't have enough data to fill up a snowball, you can probably smuggle it out through lightsail.)