[QuinnyPig]

Hi. I fix AWS bills for a living and also shitpost a lot.

This is a smart play that costs them basically nothing. Remember that egressing data costs customers at worst 3x the monthly cost of storing it. Nobody is avoiding leaving because of the egress fee.

What this does do is assuage the “lock-in” fear common in cloud-reluctant customers, while presents them as being forward thinking.

I’ve never heard of a cloud migration where the data egress wasn’t at least an order of magnitude less than the engineering cost of the migration itself.

[btown]

> also shitpost a lot

The parent poster https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig is one of my favorite Twitter accounts. Every day he gives me renewed hope that, no matter how much I wish I had more time to devote to developer experience for people using the internal tools and APIs I design on the startup side of things... at least it'll be better than the DX and customer service provided by the biggest players providing infrastructure to our entire industry :)

[danielvaughn]

Ok that's reassuring. The way it was worded made me think that GCP was headed to the Google graveyard, as wild as that would be.

[xer]

I share the view that nobody avoids an exit or migration because of egress fees. In fact, for online migrations the period of replicating data between providers might go on for months.

But all cloud providers leverage The Principle of data locality or data gravity, which states that compute benefits from being close to the stored data. If a customer moves the data elsewhere it follows that the compute will soon leave too.