[kavehkhorram]

This is mainly in reference to the fact that Reserved Instances don't have any bearing on the instances themselves (ie. no code change, performance chance, server downtime, etc.).

The 57% savings is the difference between the 3-year, no-upfront, standard Reserved Instance rate and the On-demand rate (for RDS it is 30% vs on-demand)

As far as compute savings plans:

1-yr SP is anywhere from 26-29% savings vs on-demand

3-year Sp is anywhere from 49-52% savings vs on-demand

... but note that these commitments are non-transferrable. Customers find our tailorable commitments to be a healthy blend of savings + safety against over-committing to volume they may not need

[sokoloff]

If you take 20% of the savings, my max savings are ~45%. Even that assumes my AWS bill is entirely instances.

I think you have a product that some companies will really want. It’s a good product; don’t let your marketing promises exceed the true savings by so much that it makes people leery of what else you might be hiding or stating in a less than straightforward manner.

[acdha]

I'm a huge user of RIs, I like the idea of tools to balance them more easily, etc. Totally on board with that but the way the number is presented seems to me like you're setting yourself up to over-promise and under-deliver, not to mention turning off people who are familiar enough with this to already be using RIs / CSPs somewhat. Simply qualifying it to “Cut AWS EC2 spend by up to 57%” would avoid some of that, and you could probably address the latter users with some hard data about flexibility or total net savings by other customers so people could get an idea of what it looks like for normal users who aren't just buying acres of EC2 instances and nothing else.