4 ms·
Amazon Cancels Fees for Customers Moving to Rival Cloud Services
- Daviey 3y agodupe, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39612607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39612607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39609254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39609254 Worth noting that they didn't choose to do this, they were required to by the EU.
- graemep 3y agoThey were also facing investigation elsewhere, so it was not just the EU. In the UK Ofcom (the telecoms regulator) has just finished an investigation into the cloud services market and referred AWS and Microsoft to the CMA (the competition regulator), over the issues of egress fees and licensing: https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/The-CMA-anti-trust-investigation-into-AWS-and-Microsoft-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/The-CMA-anti-trust-in...
- Daviey 3y agoWhilst I agree others were pursuing the matter, the action that /required/ them to do so was solely on the EU. Yes, they may have been facing pressure from others, which may have contributed to it, but the EU rightly deserves the sole praise for this for actually acting on it, and promptly.
- RantyDave 3y agoAhhhhh. I was wondering how Amazon (of all people) would decide to do this.
- jonplackett 3y agoIt’s kind of ironic that the removal of these anti-competitive things actually make the product itself more competitive. It’s the same with Apple and the AppStore (if they ever actually do this properly). The main complaint about iOS is it’s too restrictive. If you can have an alt AppStore then that makes iOS _better_ not worse.
- FridgeSeal 3y agoI 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.
- danpalmer 3y agoEgress fees in general, or the current trend in egress pricing? 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.
- bayindirh 3y agoIf an application/service allows me to pack me an go without any friction and fees, I tend to trust that tool more and resist leaving until it starts to sink. 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.
- inopinatus 3y agoHow would you like to pay for the outbound bandwidth you’re using? Choose: 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
- redwood 3y agoVia support request eg one time during migration. Smart optics. Minimal real impact
- taspeotis 3y agoDid they cancel the fee again? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39612607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39612607
- alephnerd 3y agoThis is SOP for retaining and enticing strategic customers. PANW was notorious for giving customers 2 years free on 5 year length 7 figure contracts of Prisma Cloud a couple years ago. Because margins are nearly nonexistent in the space, 80%+ discounts are doable to retain or attract strategic accounts either for brand awareness or for stronger product alignment
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- helsinkiandrew 3y agohttps://archive.ph/ILsrX https://archive.ph/ILsrX