3 ms·

I 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 i

I 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 ago
Egress 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 ago
If 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 ago
How 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
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  Whichever one doesn’t make it challenging for customers to switch to another provider. That may raise prices elsewhere (such as ingress fees), and the tradeoff is still likely to be net positive for the customer due to the increased competition.
  - inopinatus 3y ago
    That was option (2). The reductio ad absurdem hits like a train with that option. It’s a trap for new players. In that particular variant, the following year the same people will be complaining about how much ingress costs these days, and the same hapless regulators will feel the urge to be Seen To Do Something. Wash, rinse, repeat. Still, thanks for playing
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      The pro-competition regulators aren’t here to make your service cheap. They’re just trying to make sure that customers can exit and switch providers without artificial barriers. If you want to soak people for ingress fees, snd it’s easy for customers to switch, go ahead.
      - inopinatus 3y ago
        Bandwidth is not an artificial barrier. It’s real infrastructure, with a real cost. I should know, I once dropped a LINX core switch on my foot. Amazon is doing the right thing by maintaining egress fees but waiving them on departure. Not because it’s free for them, but because there’s zero chance that this precipitates a mass exodus, because moving is still hard even if it’s slightly cheaper. They’ll likely even gain some customers. That is, they’ll absorb the cost with growth. Which is Amazon’s business strategy in a nutshell.
        matthewdgreen 3y ago
        Bandwidth is not artificial, but Amazon’s pricing structure for it absolutely is artificial. As you point out, bandwidth is not free but Amazon didn’t charge for ingress. Now they’re taking that artificial pricing structure and making it equally artificial in a way that (somewhat) promotes competition.
        inopinatus 3y ago
        All pricing is artificial. Money does not occur in nature. This is such a generic point that it isn’t worth debating. And if you think “but you know what I mean” then no, I really don’t. This sounds like someone who wants to have their cake and eat it, having a whinge when it turns out they have to pay the baker.
- bcaxis 3y ago
  Metered GB is fine if there isn't a 8,000% markup. 200-300% would be much more reasonable and the angst over this would probably just go away. They are also already doing 5 on ingress. But maybe you consider it 2.
  - inopinatus 3y ago
    I do consider it bundled - with services priced for data at rest. For data ingress, that seems quite right to me.

danpalmer 3y ago

Egress 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 ago

If 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 ago

How 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

matthewdgreen 3y ago
Whichever one doesn’t make it challenging for customers to switch to another provider. That may raise prices elsewhere (such as ingress fees), and the tradeoff is still likely to be net positive for the customer due to the increased competition.
- inopinatus 3y ago
  That was option (2). The reductio ad absurdem hits like a train with that option. It’s a trap for new players. In that particular variant, the following year the same people will be complaining about how much ingress costs these days, and the same hapless regulators will feel the urge to be Seen To Do Something. Wash, rinse, repeat. Still, thanks for playing
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    The pro-competition regulators aren’t here to make your service cheap. They’re just trying to make sure that customers can exit and switch providers without artificial barriers. If you want to soak people for ingress fees, snd it’s easy for customers to switch, go ahead.
    - inopinatus 3y ago
      Bandwidth is not an artificial barrier. It’s real infrastructure, with a real cost. I should know, I once dropped a LINX core switch on my foot. Amazon is doing the right thing by maintaining egress fees but waiving them on departure. Not because it’s free for them, but because there’s zero chance that this precipitates a mass exodus, because moving is still hard even if it’s slightly cheaper. They’ll likely even gain some customers. That is, they’ll absorb the cost with growth. Which is Amazon’s business strategy in a nutshell.
      - matthewdgreen 3y ago
        Bandwidth is not artificial, but Amazon’s pricing structure for it absolutely is artificial. As you point out, bandwidth is not free but Amazon didn’t charge for ingress. Now they’re taking that artificial pricing structure and making it equally artificial in a way that (somewhat) promotes competition.
        inopinatus 3y ago
        All pricing is artificial. Money does not occur in nature. This is such a generic point that it isn’t worth debating. And if you think “but you know what I mean” then no, I really don’t. This sounds like someone who wants to have their cake and eat it, having a whinge when it turns out they have to pay the baker.
bcaxis 3y ago
Metered GB is fine if there isn't a 8,000% markup. 200-300% would be much more reasonable and the angst over this would probably just go away. They are also already doing 5 on ingress. But maybe you consider it 2.
- inopinatus 3y ago
  I do consider it bundled - with services priced for data at rest. For data ingress, that seems quite right to me.