Remix.run Logo
nicoburns 12 hours ago

Pricing (both cheaper and more predictable), and reduced complexity.

nozzlegear 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is why I moved off of Azure and over to Hetzner's US VPS's. For what I was deploying (a few dozen websites, some relatively complex .NET web apps, some automated scripts, etc.), the pricing on Azure just wasn't competitive. But worse for me was the complexity; I found that using Azure encouraged me to introduce more and more complex deployment pipelines, when all I really needed was Build the container -> SCP it into a blue/green deployment scheme on a VPS -> flip a switch after testing it.

saidinesh5 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Interesting. I'd have thought these giants would have better pricing because of the scale...

pinkgolem 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The last comparison I did was Hetzner offers 14x the performance per dollar

Not including the faster SSD & included traffic

direwolf20 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Is that based on their cloud or dedicated offering?

direwolf20 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Quite the opposite. They have mindshare lock–in and don't face competitive pressure to reduce prices. AWS boasts it never increased prices but it also never reduced them by much, even as hardware got an order of magnitude cheaper.

nicoburns 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They might be if they were trying to compete on price. But my understanding is their margins are... healthy shall we say.

bombcar 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They're selling all their capabilities; using them as a VPS is like using a battleship to cut cheese.

But if all you really do with cloud stuff is "ssh into a server I have" (which covers a ton!) then you'll find much cheaper/more performant elsewhere.

vel0city 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They give potentially worse pricing on a lot of the basic things (egress bandwidth, basic VM hosting, storage pricing) because their real value-add are all the extra managed services they offer on top of those things, the scale they're able to offer, and the more enterprise features.

If you're using AWS/GCP/Azure to just host a couple of VMs for a small group you're massively overpaying.

unethical_ban 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I haven't been professionally involved in AWS in some time, and never was involved in pricing.

Personally, the only thing I know of that is a true deal vs. competition is cold storage of data. Using the s3 glacier tiers for long term data that is saved solely for emergencies is really cheap, something like $1/100GB a month or less.

AWS is usually not the cheapest EVER when it comes to offerings like EC2. If you aren't doing cloud-native or serverless at AWS, you're probably spending too much.

direwolf20 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Glacier Deep Archive is around $1/TB/month. This is also about the good deal price for storage servers right now, although Glacier offers redundancy which storage servers don't.

cynicalsecurity 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They don't. AWS is the most expensive hosting provider in the world.

stephenr 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

AWS outbound data is as much as 75x the cost of eg Hetzner.

I view a large percentage of "cloud" usage like Teslas stock price: it's completely detached from reality by people who have drunk the kool aid and can't get out.