> Every cloud provider has their expensive “thing”. Ingress is always cheap, egress always expensive. AWS has their “Managed NAT Gateway”, after all, the sit-in

> Every cloud provider has their expensive “thing”. Ingress is always cheap, egress always expensive. AWS has their “Managed NAT Gateway”, after all, the sit-in-the-corner money printer that never fails. This is my pet peeve with cloud providers. Each one of them seem to have a gotcha somewhere hidden. It's very hard to compare what your final costs will be early in the project. You try to compare GCloud, AWS and Azure on VM, ingress, egress. After that comparisons become harder as services don't necessarily map 1:1. You end up choosing one and always find something else that adds to the cost you forgot to include, or maybe you just underestimated some metric. Egress feels abusive pretty much across the board. Without really a good reason. Feels like they all sat at a table and decided to fix the price there. While you are developing your business you find you want to use some feature (like managed VMs on Azure's case) that is priced way out of a reasonable amount. You feel robbed, maybe you can still pay for it with your budget, but even then it leaves a bad taste, like you are getting a bad deal.