Reduce cloud costs, specifically storage and bandwidth
Cloud computing might be tempting when you are just starting a company because you don't need to worry about having your own infrastructure. But as you host more and more storage and demand more and more bandwidth, the current cost per GB models become pricey.
There is a now-popular analogy between cars and the cloud. The current cloud offering is advantageous when you rent a car from city A to city B, but if you are traveling too often, you better buy your own.
All the hype around cloud computing set aside, if the cloud is aiming at the next big thing for businesses, it better be cheaper!! Cheaper for especially large companies.
When is Windows Azure going to cost less? At least, Amazon has a better-looking model in which they reduce per GB costs when the consumption rate is over a specific number. MS should provide a better solution to all-MS .NET developers.
We support both a pay-per-use model and a consumption model that should dramatically reduce costs. The details are found here: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/pricing/purchase-options/
The monthly payment plans starting with 500$ are still way too expensive for smaller companies (< 50 employees)
We would probably be willing to pay around 100$/month for a discount of 10%
Probably Microsoft tries to avoid being flooded by loads of smaller accounts.
this is still relevant.
OneDrive now supports 1TB, which can be purchased for as little as $2.50/user/mo. Pricing for 1TB of Azure Storage: $24/mo
The costs for GB have recently come down for Azure as described here with a waterfall/tiered pricing model:
Amazon reduced its costs once again. Their bandwidth costs are much more tempting now. Azure still keeps things expensive. When are we going to see special offers for large customers?
@Philip That's great news, but outbound bandwidth is still expensive. :)
Windows Azure Core offer sucks. It's an attempt to attract customers for sure, but the price for the offer increases about 50% after 6 months. Plus, once the amount of storage and bandwidth in the offer is consumed, everything is charged at the pay-as-you-go rate. We need cheaper pay-as-you-go rates!!!
@bacigalupo yeah. It's not like Microsoft pays for server OS and SQL database licenses. They can clearly reduce the per hour instance costs if they want. They should know that if they want to beat Amazon, the first rule is prices should be lower than what Amazon currently offers. I don't think a lot of developers would choose PaaS over IaaS when faced with high costs of running a data-driven, popular website.
Server costs are also expensive. Any way for us to buy shared/dedicated reserved instances like on AWS?
lol what if YouTube was hosted on Azure? #megabills
Ian Dallas commented
my great windows azure idea: reduce costs :)
How is Microsoft hoping to compete with Amazon when their pricing is more expensive? It sucks to be a .NET developer and look to other alternatives.
Their name is OVH.
PaaS might be more expensive than IaaS, but is the price difference justified in the case of a large enterprise paying mega bills due to their extreme storage and bandwidth demands?
@Philip what is the name of that french hosting provider?
There is a large French hosting provider that offers cloud instances with unlimited 100mbit connection for as low as 0.0119 €/hour. I'm not suggesting that you need to offer traffic flatrates too but you could clearly reduce the pricing for traffic.