Hacker News Reader

It's probably quite difficult to boil it down to something as simple as an "off" switch that'll limit costs for them, meaningfully work for all services, not be abused, not be confusing, and not result in the customers that actually make you money accidentally getting important things shut off unexpectedly under predictable circumstances.

It's probably easier to make it so they can set up alerts and have a human on their end evaluate what steps are worth taking to cut costs while maintaining important availability.

From what I can tell Azure has more robust stop-loss options. But business considerations for the provider aside, there are absolutely tradeoffs between reliably limiting your spend and avoiding taking a business down because of a legitimate spike.

Absolutely but that tradeoff should be for the customer to make.

I don't really know although I can make up an answer but it contradicts

> None of them have an equivalent of a stop-loss.

Cynically, it's because they want to take your money. Practically, it's because a company that breaks your thing because you didn't pay, even if you asked it to, just isn't going to be a popular move.

It takes real leadership to back a product feature like this. That's why.