If you only need one hour then indeed it's great price but if you need it 24/7 then it's 260$ a month which is really expensive if you compare alternative (you can get dedicated server capable of same throughput easily for half the price).
It's not about 260$ it's about tens of thousands of dollars saved by companies i work with after migrating from AWS.
AWS is overpriced service for people that do not have time or resources to do things on their own and pay massive prices for that.
Isn't that the point of AWS?
The time / resources cost to build (monitor and maintain..) your own infrastructure isn't zero.
Did these companies have spare teams lying around the place, such that no new hires were needed to make the transition? If not, then it's not so much of a saving at the current cost of dev / ops personnel, just now on a different balance sheet.
Then you come back when you have due diligence and compliance and availability requirements. And you see how much that is really costing you with the arrangements you have.
Finally if you're super successful, you could self host or otherwise. But "rack costs" (naively) trade off against people and auditors.
Summary: AWS is expensive, especially for bandwidth. Practically if your business requirements are not bandwidth intensive, it ends up being paradoxically cheaper than the alternatives if your business involves legal agreements and things like availability commitments to customers.