[SteveNuts]

I think the "Legacy" and "licensing" portions are specifically calling out MS and Oracle, but they very sneakily are calling AWS out too on the fact that egress makes it insanely expensive to leave their platform.

I've worked at some orgs where to either move their data out of S3 would cost $20k, or to even delete it would cost thousands in API calls.

[solatic]

> to even delete it would cost thousands in API calls

raises eyebrow

It's a well-known trick (proposed by AWS Support as well) to set S3 lifecycle rules to empty buckets with too many objects to cycle through via List calls. Doesn't cost anything.

[SteveNuts]

There's still a cost for transitions even if it's not list calls. That might be cheaper I haven't looked in a while.

[QuinnyPig]

Deletes are free in S3, whether done via API or lifecycle.

[zinekeller]

You don't need the "I think" for Microsoft: while not mentioned directly, the links on "unfair legacy software" points to Microsoft.

[pyuser583]

Oracle is what popped into my mind.

[dspillett]

> but they very sneakily are calling AWS out too

That, and any of the smaller “clouds” with egress/delete fees that need to be considered when leaving. Seems massively disingenuous given that until this announcement they also had such fees (“look, those people try rip you just like we were doing until five minutes ago!”) but that is pretty standard for marketing materials.

This makes them a better option as the first cloud provider to try, other things being equal, because leaving (back to on-prem or to another provider) is easier. I assume they are trying to remove a little of the huge the distance between them and the two leading players by reducing concerns that might add on-boarding friction.