[stillicidious]

The question is whether what you're receiving is genuinely free, or a part of some squeezable marketing budget. In my experience it always makes sense to consider the latter. At some point that $595/mo. you're saving will appear on a lead sheet, whether it happens today or (similar to e.g. Google Apps) after 5 years. Also like Google, they're a public company nowadays and will eventually succumb like every company before them to the realities of reporting growth.

I'd always prefer paying for certainty than design a solution built on a lottery.

[windexh8er]

> The question is whether what you're receiving is genuinely free, or a part of some squeezable marketing budget.

Using any "free" service is generally not free as you scale. That's the freemium model we live in today.

> Also like Google, they're a public company nowadays and will eventually succumb like every company before them to the realities of reporting growth.

This is an unfortunate assumption with nothing to go on at this point. There is no more certainty with AWS, as implied in your statement, than with any other cloud provider. Not all organizations have an end goal in being the scale of AWS. And not all organizations put profit over product with respect to an outdated perspective that said organizations need to grow 40% YoY for all of eternity to be successful. It's now, more than ever, very clear that AWS profit margins on data transfer are egregious and they spin the backpedal as "Oh - look at us dropping prices, for you, our esteemed customer!". This is the real marketing slight of hand here, not the other way around.

[slownews45]

I really would love if folks talking about volatile AWS prices would actually give examples.

I have been screwed, personally, by enough "free" and "unlimited" offerings to never believe them.

On AWS, all the price changes I've had have been to reduce my costs. This is over a pretty long period.

So inform us of the uncertainty with AWS.

Google, sure, they could cancel or 3x your bill (hi Maps API customers etc). AWS does not have that history.

Cloudflare has secret pricing - that's the really annoying thing. Seriously, put a porn site up online with cloudflare and see how far "free" gets you.

[windexh8er]

> I really would love if folks talking about volatile AWS prices would actually give examples.

There was never any mention of "volatile" pricing. Egregious? Yes. Volatile? No. There's a significant difference of meaning with those words.

Here's a perfect example [0] by Corey Quinn.

> So inform us of the uncertainty with AWS.

I didn't mention "uncertainty with AWS". I mentioned that there is no more certainty with AWS than with any other major cloud provider with respect to your statement about public companies who "eventually succumb like every company before them to the realities of reporting growth". And then for some reason you pivoted to your own, personal, AWS bill from there. I'm not exactly following the logic.

> Cloudflare has secret pricing - that's the really annoying thing.

At this point I'm not sure if your comment is even serious. First of all, please elaborate on "secret pricing". Sounds like serious charges we should all be aware of. Maybe it's with the article from 2019 on The Register about domain pricing? That's not exactly in the context of this thread, but please enlighten the masses.

> Seriously, put a porn site up online with cloudflare and see how far "free" gets you.

I'd charge you with the same ask on AWS. You seem to imply the "free" tier, on AWS, will provide proper capabilities to host an adult content site. I have strong doubts about this. The logic of this argument is ill conceived at best. Or is your logic just that you can't do this on Cloudflare and that's the root of your argument on why AWS is better? Again, I'm not exactly following your train of thought.

[0] https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/the-compelling-economics-...

[slownews45]

Let's be crystal crystal clear here. If I host a high data use video site on AWS, I can calculate what my costs will be. That provides me some certainty with respect to a business plan. Even better, AWS does have a history that is much better than others in terms of pricing stability. This doesn't mean best price.

Can you say the same about cloudflare? No. Can you say the same about oracle? No - they have a miserable history of screwing customers.

AWS is offering clear pricing, cloudflare is not. It's really that simple.

This makes me realize that folks just don't understand the value AWS is providing, and is perhaps why they can charge such insane prices.

People with actual money to spend don't want "free" because they don't believe it's actually free.

In terms of cloudflare, they have something like a negative 60% operating margin. The idea of building a business on a company with a negative 60%+ operating margin is insane, either they will go bust or have to raise prices.

AWS by contrast makes money. Because of this, they can shave a point or two off margin to give (another) price reduction.

1TB per month cloudfront, 2M cloudfront functions etc etc. They are under almost NO financial pressure to raise rates.

Cloudflare is under pressure or will be. With VC money perhaps they will get a longer runway.

The "free" offerings are an old story by now.

[windexh8er]

It is crystal clear that this comment validates the misunderstanding of how bandwidth is priced in the real world and how, just because Amazon's price model has been reliable, that it must be a viable cost because people pay it. It's unfortunate that the reality you're basing this comment on is so far off base that you've convinced yourself AWS egress fees are somehow "stable". It's also very interesting that you're stating Cloudflare is under some unforeseen "pressure" because they're not turning a profit today. I would gather you're assuming Cloudflare is being soaked by infrastructure costs, which is completely incorrect, as they build out their pivot towards targeting the enterprise market by investing in their field (sales) and continually reinvesting in R&D.

It's also fantastic to read the misconceptions of the "value" AWS is providing. In some cases they do provide a much greater value over cost ratio, but if you've convinced yourself that blindly for AWS proper as a whole - boy do I feel for you the day you realize the economic advantage they manipulate to monopolize the cloud market, and not for the greater good of their customers.

Clear pricing you say? I'll use Corey Quinn (The Duckbill Group [0]) as an example again - his entire liveihood and business runs on the fact that AWS pricing is not even remotely clear. It's laughable that anyone would publicly make that statement at this point in time knowing what we know. Sure, if you're running a static site on S3 for a few users a month I'm sure you've got it covered. For those of us dealing with large scale enterprise everything stated here is, at best, bending the truth and at worst flat out ignorance.

[0] https://www.duckbillgroup.com/

[stillicidious]

> his entire liveihood and business runs on the fact that AWS pricing is not even remotely clear

Corey's business exists because prevailing engineering culture encourages pretty much the entire industry to consider optimization as an afterthought, not because engineers can't understand AWS pricing, or interpret a few bar charts in Cost Explorer, and in the face of a deadline, if it's not on the agile board everyone knows it doesn't exist.

Many of Corey's technical posts are around finding sweet technical substitutes for niche use cases, but as I'm sure he'll tell you, 80% of what he does is easily discovered a few clicks away from the AWS home page.

> as they build out their pivot towards targeting the enterprise market

Cloudflare have a solid sales pipeline, but they're a sitting duck if any of the big clouds ever decide to replicate the business model like-for-like. One of the reasons this may not have happened yet is because Cloudflare's whole presentation is consumer oriented, starting with domain configuration management that is hell to version correctly when 20 people have access to the account. Outside some sweet Javascript cold start hacks they basically have no moat, and there are far more situations that could send the company into desperate measures than otherwise.

[slownews45]

"It is crystal clear that this comment validates the misunderstanding of how bandwidth is priced in the real world and how"

If you don't think AWS bandwidth pricing is something in the real world I don't know what to say :) AWS is now broken out in Amazon financials - worth a look to see what they are raking in and the margins they are getting in the real world :)

"Clear pricing you say? I'll use Corey Quinn (The Duckbill Group [0]) as an example again"

His entire business depends on the fact that AWS pricing is clear and public. For a service like cloudflare (ie, call for pricing / dealing with a salesperson trying to figure out how much they can squeeze you for on upfront or on renewal) this type of service is much harder.

In short, if your bill is too high, you can talk to someone like Corey and they can probably help you bring it down.

[georgyo]

Google Apps is likely a poor example of your point. All the people who were using the free tier were never forced to paid plans.

I'm still using free tier Google Apps in multiple places, even though they haven't offered new free accounts for about ten years now. They even still let you create new users for free in these legacy GApps.

Interestingly, I would likely migrate off of GApps to a different paid service if Google changed their minds, however I don't think they have a strong incentive to apply pressure here at long as Gmail.com accounts are free.