The article does discuss ratios. "Billion" is just the attention-grabber. > If the first server, the one that is better in literally every way, costs ~16k/year

The article does discuss ratios. "Billion" is just the attention-grabber. > If the first server, the one that is better in literally every way, costs ~16k/year... how much should the other one cost? Well, maybe 10, maybe 12, maybe 14? > I don't know, but the answer certainly shouldn't be "Almost twice as much at 26k/year", that's the kind of answer that indicates something is broken. > In a worst-case scenario, AWS is ~1.6x times as expensive, but again, that's paid yearly. If we compare paid monthly to paid hourly (not exactly fair) we get 37k vs 16k, if we do some napkin math calculations for equivalent storage cost (with equivalent speed via guaranteed iops) we easily get to ~3k/year extra. We have a 40k vs 16k difference, the AWS machine with the worst specs is 250% more expensive. > But whether the worst AWS machine is 160% or 250% as expensive as the OVH one is not the relevant question here, the question is why are we seeing those astronomical differences in terms of cost to being with.