[parsadotsh]

It does make sense. Consider the phrase "twice as cheap"

[sascha_sl]

It should be percentage points, because "100% cheaper" would already be free.

It probably means AWS is 440% more expensive.

[Rastonbury]

Technically yes but no person is reading that and thinking backblaze is paying you or its free. Its a nitpick

[mulmen]

I have always found that phrasing to be confusing. Consider the reciprocal, “half as cheap”. Should that be interpreted as… double?

Say “half the cost” or “cheaper by half”.

[Dylan16807]

> Consider the reciprocal, “half as cheap”. Should that be interpreted as… double?

If the phrasing makes it clear they're talking about a higher price, then yes that's a good interpretation. You get half as good a deal.

Someone might say "half as cheap" to talk about a price drop by 50%, even though that's not really correct, but such is language.

[boffinism]

What is 440% less than 1, then? In my book, it's -3.4.

[wlesieutre]

I've considered it, and decided that "twice as cheap" is equally poor choice of words

[Blahah]

It doesn't make sense. Consider the phrase "once as cheap". Multiply by two. That's twice as cheap. Meaningless.

[Dylan16807]

Do you think "twice as expensive" is meaningless? Because by that same logic, if I start with "once as expensive" that's not a number and multiplying by two gives me a meaningless concept.

[Blahah]

Once as expensive is a number, it's 1 x the cost. Twice as expensive is 2x the cost. Once as cheap might arguably be 1x the cost, but twice as cheap is undefined.

[Dylan16807]

> Once as expensive is a number, it's 1 x the cost.

Nobody says that. If someone said "once as expensive" I'd interpret "once" as talking about time.

"Once" can be a counter but not a multiple.

[Blahah]

It seems like we're taking at cross purposes. I'm not trying to convince you that anyone says "once as X". I'm just saying "twice as cheap" is nonsensical. Because it's a multiple of something undefined.