Hacker News Reader

I don’t think we can say with certainty without knowing more details about their respective network investments. CloudFlare is architected quite differently than the others, and has a much less comprehensive service portfolio. It’s not an apples to apples comparison unless we’re strictly comparing S3 to R2. Choosing to charge less may also be a loss leader or a differentiation play.

View on HN

I think this underlines the core problem. It's really hard to make a fully informed choice of provider based on costs, and they deliberately make multi-cloud expensive.

Egress costs are fairly clearly a vendor lock in strategy. If I want to transfer 1TB to run on cheaper compute at another provider, that costs me $90 (edit) on AWS as opposed to $0.24 at wholesale prices. It's unlikely to be cost effective so I choose AWS compute.

EDIT: thanks to someonebaggy for pointing out my decimal point error.

Ninety dollars to transfer a terabyte is clearly ridiculous.

It actually costs you $90 on AWS, not just $9

The latency is a bit higher, but IP over Avian Carrier would be cheaper than this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com