[syshum]

Looking at just the storage pricing, it looks like GCP was already priced lower than AWS and Azure, this increase brings them either to on par, just just slightly below AWS and Azure.

GCP was trying to "loss lead" in to dominance, does not look like that was working out since even being more expensive AWS and Azure were still killing them.

Of course if you only choose GCP because of cost you have little reason to stay so...

[marcinzm]

Many enterprise care more about the risk of prices changing than the absolute prices. The later you can account for in budgets more easily than the former. Especially if the price increase is one that goes from $0 to $non-zero since that could be a massive increase in absolute dollars.

AWS has never afaik increased prices which is a pretty strong selling point even if specific services likely are a loss for them perpetually as a result if mis-priced initially.

[syshum]

>AWS has never afaik increased prices which is a pretty strong selling point even if specific services

Technically true, but they do it a little different, where by they add different SKU;s with higher prices, and discontinue the old SKU's forcing you to move to a "new product" instead of just increasing the prices.

Not all services are like that but they just did that with compute instances, I believe this is the second time they have killed off a "generation" of compute

[acdha]

Do you have any examples of this? It makes sense that old hardware be replaced but it's usually over a LONG lifecycle and the new instance type pricing is often lower than the previous generation.

[dillondoyle]

It seems like the increases are also focused on egress/bandwidth which people gripe about aws gauging on all the time?