[stingraycharles]

I don’t think this is reasonable criticism. It’s more than fair for them to charge for egress traffic, and they’re doing it at a price point less than AWS.

Of course it would be nicer if things were free, but to claim this to be evidence of a march into irrelevance? For charging for egress traffic on a Docker registry? That’s a bit too much don’t you think? Especially considering how easy it is to set up some GitHub action and or another CI tool that constantly keeps hammering their registries without a lot of value. Docker (the company) clearly feels the pain of this a lot, and they just want to prevent this type of thing from happening.

If I were to guess the intended use case is to help you with deployments inside the DO cloud, and to actually reduce your ingress traffic when pulling from other, remote docker registries. It’s a win/win for these use cases, and to be honest, it’s not expensive.

Besides, DO’s pricing still is very much favorable compared to other cloud vendors.

[DanielDent]

There are many CDNs that make money charging < $0.01/gb.

Indeed DigitalOcean themselves built their place in the market by charging $0.01/gb for bandwidth. How do we reasonably get to $0.10 as is the case here?

If it were really that expensive for them they could outsource it to a CDN for well under $0.01/gb at their scale, which would leave them the ability to get margin. But all of this pricing is in fact completely detached from the underlying physical realities -- they are charging these prices because they think they can get away with it, not because they need to do so to cover costs and have some margin.

Bandwidth prices shouldn't be going up, indeed they should be going down. 100 gigabit interconnects are a thing now.