3 ms·
Abstractly AWS sort of _do_ charge you a % of your revenue. For the resources you consume from AWS for $C, those resources should be generating a revenue for yo
by sirsinsalot 6y ago
Abstractly AWS sort of _do_ charge you a % of your revenue. For the resources you consume from AWS for $C, those resources should be generating a revenue for you of $R, if $R<$C then you're making a loss from those resources. If you're making a profit, AWS takes a cut in line-step with how much resource you use (and therefore how much profit you make).
This assumes that as your needs increase, your profit increases and so does your AWS bill. Granular, PAYG billing is really just a tax on what you _should_ be converting to profit in some sense.
At least, it's an interesting way to look at capital allocation and ROI.
- nolok 6y agoBy your metric anything you pay is a % of your revenue, I think you understand what I meant in the context I meant it. Imagine a scenario where you realize you can double your prices without changing anything else nor losing customer, therefore only changing your revenue by doubling it. Your AWS bill doesn't change. Your Apple store bill doubles. This is factually a tax on revenue.
- sirsinsalot 6y agoI did understand you, and wasn't disagreeing. Just offering up a comparison as someone currently doing AWS price projections based on unit costs / CLV and seeing a fairly even margin on AWS resource usage vs revenue-per-resource. Cost plus and all that. It struck me at the time, that the granular billing allows AWS to function less like a product seller and more like a tax. A weak comparison granted.