Hosting terabytes of data on an S3 bucket where people would download 45TB per month ($0.023/GB == $1000+/month) sounds like a really expensive way to distribute your data to people...
It is download 45 TB PER DAY. Should use the egress data price for the calculation instead of the hosting price.
The graph makes it look like about 90% of the requests are apple, so I think this is intended to be serving more like 4.5TB per day. At that rate, I don't think its a terrible way to handle it, since S3 handles things all of the HA and scaling stuff internally. They clearly didn't expect apple to go whole hog on the service.
You could configure buyer pays, if you wanted to.
That makes it harder for everyone though where companies like Apple should proxy and/or cache those requests to their own internal version rather than hitting that S3 bucket every time. Requiring requester payment would mean it would only really be used by corporations where the author clearly wants a service open to anyone without having to open an AWS account to pay.
Make the bucket buyer-pays, but offer Torrent links as well. Businesses doing CI will pay for S3 usage so they don't have to deal with torrents, end-users will get free torrent access, everybody wins.
I just skimmed AWS requester pays and it seems that you can't set the price, the requester always pays only the AWS's download cost, so why bother setting it as requester pays at all if it doesn't bring you anything?
It brings you the absence of GET requests and the bandwidth charges on your AWS bill. In this case, 45TB a day is going to add a lot to an AWS bill, you can shift that cost to the user that's downloading the files from you.
The S3 bucket is a repository for the models which get downloaded at runtime it seems so a torrent isn't really a good fit for a drop in replacement.