I do not follow the logic?
I think cloud providers having egress fees is flat out just revenue raising. I don’t follow the connection to the App Store, which is a matter of restrictive for whom and is not an analogous situation.
I think cloud providers having egress fees is flat out just revenue raising. I don’t follow the connection to the App Store, which is a matter of restrictive for whom and is not an analogous situation.
It signals "We believe that we can support and serve you the way you want and we trust ourselves to do it, so no fences and barriers".
As a result, instead of being on the toes for going all in, you can confidently scale in that tool/service.
IOW, it's the difference between a trusting and abusive relationship.
1. metered gigabytes
2. bundled in with some other resource you’re paying for (which one?)
3. fixed allowance then it stops working altogether
4. monthly charge per 95%ile of contractually provisioned mbps (i.e. old school ISP billing)
5. I just want something for nothing
Amazon is doing the right thing by maintaining egress fees but waiving them on departure. Not because it’s free for them, but because there’s zero chance that this precipitates a mass exodus, because moving is still hard even if it’s slightly cheaper. They’ll likely even gain some customers. That is, they’ll absorb the cost with growth. Which is Amazon’s business strategy in a nutshell.
They are also already doing 5 on ingress. But maybe you consider it 2.
Bandwidth isn't free, so cloud providers would need to charge for it somewhere, and the strategy of all the major providers is to charge in line with actual usage, so charging for actual bandwidth usage makes sense.
Now one could argue that not charging ingress fees is "flat out just lock-in", and that perhaps they should be splitting the ingress/egress fees appropriately.