@1: That doesn't directly address either of my points. You're just providing an orthogonal example of a something that cloud providers didn't move on. I agree

@1: That doesn't directly address either of my points. You're just providing an orthogonal example of a something that cloud providers didn't move on. I agree that the bandwidth pricing is almost certainly designed to create lock-in. What I am contending is that that is unrelated to the storage pricing. You'll notice that my arguments didn't include bandwidth pricing at all, because it is irrelevant to those arguments. I'll give a more concrete example. Let's say I want to transfer 10PB out of S3. On their pricing sheet they actually say to contact them to get a quote, but before that the prices are dropping pretty fast as you get more data. e.g. 10TB is 9 cents per GB, but after you get past 300TB you're paying 5 cents per GB. Let's be pessimistic and assume 5 cents per GB, even though you could probably get it for much cheaper by contacting them. So 10PB will cost me (10PB * (5c/GB)) = $500K to export Standard storage is about 2 cents per GB. So your 10PB sitting in S3 is costing you 200K / month just to sit there and do nothing. Do you see the problem here? Moving onto the 20K / month provider becomes cost-positive after 3 months. Even if they were to increase bandwidth costs 10x, it'd still become cost-positive in a relatively short amount of time (couple of years). Furthermore, if you are paying S3 millions of dollars per year to store data, you're almost certainly in a position to get them to contractually agree to that cheaper-than-public bandwidth cost I mentioned earlier, so you don't even have to worry about the situation in which they hold you hostage by increasing bandwidth costs 1000x. Yet furthermore, to reiterate my previous point even if they were to increase bandwidth costs 1000x on normal customers that didn't have enough clout to get contractual guarantees, that would kill their business. Nobody new would put any new data in them. Sure, they could hold the existing data hostage, but absolutely nobody is going to put any new data there. Similarly, if they were to not decrease storage costs 10x compared to a virtually-identical competitor, nobody would put new data with them. This is the part that is totally unrelated to bandwidth costs. Everyone would start putting all of their new data into the competitor, regardless of their old data being locked in. The fact that Amazon and Google both immediately reduce storage prices after the other one does is evidence that this is the case. @2 I think you underestimate mainframes. People who use them aren't totally stupid. They do a specific thing very well. Right tool for the job and all that.