Ask HN: Azure startup credits are a bait and switch? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Azure startup credits are a bait and switch?

24 pointspejrich14 comments

What's everyones experience been with Azure Founder's Hub credits? I have a legitamate startup, that Azure has vetted(I'm not a crypto miner or anything like that). First it takes me nearly two months talking to support to link them to my account, merely because my Linkedin email is different than my startup email.

Once they're finally linked to my account, I request a quota increase for a single instance of their smallest/cheapest GPU instance(startup has a few ML models it's running). This is a 4 core T4 instance priced at $383/month. They offer me a ~$5k/m instance, which is obviously out of the price range of someone asking for a $383 instance. Then I'm told, "Switch to a paid plan to access GPU instances, we have limited supply for sponsored accounts". Limited supply? I'm literally asking for access to ONE of your smallest/cheapest instance. And it sounds like the answer is "Yes, we have it available, but not for credits".

What's the use of founders credits that can't even be used? Is this the norm with Azure?

Azure isn't going to give you something for nothing.

If you're trying to buy cloud servers and you're broke, you're using capital all wrong.

You should be buying used enterprise servers and used GPUs and throwing them in second rate datacenters or your garage.

Don't buy platinum silverware when you can't afford it and don't need it. If they're handing it out for free, sure take it, but then don't try to complete the set.

Cloud credits are pretty normal right now for startups (see AWS who led the way here with their 100k of credits). It's not "something or nothing", since they're willing to give out credits making the bet that you are hooked on their cloud when/if you grow, and they just need a small percentage of startups they give credits to to work out.

OP (or anyone using cloud servers) aren't "buying" silverware, they're renting it, for a far cheaper (many times free) rate in the early days, with less user overhead, so they don't need to actually buy servers, worry about space, worry about managing them, worry about scaling (or what to do if they have breakout success), etc. and instead focus on the core problem of their startup. This seems like the right tradeoff to me unless you have a very predictable workload (in which case you likely aren't an early stage company), and what most software startups do nowadays, unless you have specific hardware needs that you can't get access to easily or would truly be more expensive to rent and the tradeoff is worth it (ex: GPU rigs for training models or the like).

You misunderstand the function of the credits.

The credits are to help you get your infrastructure built with less cost.

This allows you to try things and get things set up the way you want.

Servers shouldn’t be running all the time .. you deploy, test, delete everything, deploy again, etc.

You don’t leave it running unless you want it to eat your credits.

After the initial setup Azure hopes that you have built something that you will want to have continually running, which makes them money long term.

As opposed to just having users look at the price and avoiding Azure altogether.

I'm not asking them to give me something for nothing. The whole point is to get me hooked and spending so that when those credits run out or a year is up, I'll have to start paying cash. That's like saying giving someone free heroin is just giving them something for nothing. No, the person giving the heroin absolutely has a reason for doing it, and it's not for nothing.

I'm not asking for them to send me a GPU, just to let me use a GPU instance, you know, like people often do in cloud computing. I'm guessing you've never heard of it. More of a kitchenwares guy?

I’m in the founders hub program as well and have been very happy with the generous amount of credits, which I have also used for GPU SKUs (don’t remember the exact SKU).

It’s true that there are some constraints on eligible SKUs, but I have found that usually it’s tied to which region you want to run it in, i.e. subject to (non-preferential) availability. And GPU SKUs are obviously in high demand currently. Consider checking in other regions or even zones if you haven’t already.

My impression is certainly not that they are trying to bait and switch you, but just that the Azure experience can be a bit user hostile sometimes.

Seems like a bait and switch when instead of saying "We can give you that SKU in this data center" they say "We can give you that SKU if you use a paid plan".

You must be using some of the higher priced GPUs(which they offered me), but I'm looking for something in the <$1k/month range.

One 1k$ desktop PC from BestBuy on a residential connection is the answer for the most of the workloads.

Nope. No, it's not.

For the right workloads, yes. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/azure-arc/#infras...

Ok, and when there's a power outage at my house as happens quite often in CA? When my internet goes out about once a week and I'm not home to reset it, what then? Just tell the customers "Sorry, I'm running this out of my garage, it's the best thing to do".

the right workloads

I worked at a top 15 Azure customer and we also had commonly had availability issues with GPU SKUs. And this was before the current AI boom (though also during the worst of the supply chain problems). So no, it's not you, there's simply insufficient supply to meet demand.

Is it only with GPUs?

Appears so. I was able to start CPU instances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com