[switch007]

It’s rare for large companies to immediately comply with the spirit of the law. See EU261 for example - airlines were dragged kicking and screaming through the courts over many years.

Amazon’s behaviour isn’t surprising, but you’re not wrong to call it out

[bombcar]

Part of the problem (and why laws have to be used) is that the companies want all the other companies to do the same change at the same time.

If you do it early, you're at a disadvantage (unless you can market it heavily, which usually only is if you're the small player already).

[amluto]

Really?

If AWS unilaterally cut egress fees 100x, then a few things might happen:

GCP and Azure customers might migrate to AWS or have very serious phone calls with their account reps. (Hmm, GCP customers might be unable to reach an account rep.)

Third party providers, who are currently stuck in AWS, GCP and Azure because their customers can’t afford egress if they move out, will consider alternative hosting. This is IMO a big one, but it has nothing to do with whether GCP and Azure play along.

Some customers might shut down their colocated systems and move into AWS.

Why is being first a problem?

[bombcar]

Because now all the customers who want to leave, can do so, and the customers you could get from other platforms can't cheaply leave, yet.

[amluto]

Leaving isn’t particularly expensive regardless: compare egress prices to non-Glacier S3 prices. Leaving doesn’t cost more than a couple months of staying.

What is expensive is leaving in part. You can’t offload part of your data pipelines to, say, Digital Ocean or a colo cost-effectively.