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 have had many many price drops on storage and compute since the original idea was submitted. Will close this idea given its age.
Dinesh Kumar commented
Keith L. commented
Who is managing to these comments below! Not cool, this needs to be addressed.
Dusan B, Jovanovic commented
Owning the car is the least feasible solution. If you travel a lot between City A and City B, the most feasible solution is to take the bus. (for example: Office 365).
If you have customers on that journey then lease the bus and charge them accordingly. MSFT is offering buses for rent (example: Azure Container for every passenger)
If it turns out you have a lot of customers (who like your service) lease the train (example: Azure Enterprise Cloud).
As the owner of facilities you will always be a first class passenger. Your customers? That depends on you.
That is the model. You can select between Azure and AWS. There are no other feasible options.
There should be a disk alternative optimized to be as cheap as possible (cost/GB). It could achieve this by lowering the SLA, fewer data copies (like a single copy of the data on a RAID5 volume or something like that).
Also there really need to be a way to get more memory in VM without increasing everything else. Most of the time you only need the extra memory you get by a larger VM-size and the extra CPU/disk, bandwidth and whatever is just wasted.
And then there are other times where you need almost no memory and no CPU but you need network bandwidth and disk IO
Daniel Z commented
give up. they don't even remove the spam from this thread.
Time to look for alternatives.
Vaclav Elias commented
Seems more folks have got some comments regarding the performance & cost of Azure VM, read this article & comments:
Azure VM Blues: Fighting a losing Performance Battle
At the moment, I want reduced costs for App Service premium VMs. They seem too costly compared to Cloud Services VMs.
Jeff Chu commented
"EC2 comes out first as it will only set you back $15 per month for a t2.micro instance including storage and bandwidth. Azure is more than twice more expensive despite of the its poor showing in performance tests."
"What makes Azure A1 so slow? Simple, its antiquated hardware: the Azure plan sports a 5 year old CPU (AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 4171 HE) and in 2015, it still is not using SSDs. Both EC2 and GCE feature recent Intel Xeon by default. A plan with SSD on Azure will set you back at least $70 per month."
I totally agree with Rao that your business model is too complicated. Too much variation! You do not get Open Source guys to Azure if you provide lots of freeniums like DigitalOcean, Cloud66, Amazon and Google Cloud.
Above all, if you are a partner of Microsoft you get a lot of discount. Why not for companies doing business directly?
We are going to run Dynamics AX in the cloud. If that is too expensive we will migrate back to a private cloud. No doubt about it!
Vaclav Elias commented
I have just migrated from Fasthosts VM + SQL Server to Azure VM + SQL Server (A2 Standard).
I like much Azure but the performance of the Azure VM is for the same price of Fasthosts VM much lower or rather significantly lower. If I would like to get the same performance I would need switch to A3 Standard and pay 2x more.
So why do we need to reduce the price also by August 2015?? Because the competition offer better performance for less money :)
In my case, the whole Azure cost is simply twice more expensive than with the Fasthosts. I hope that the servers will be soon more power full for the same price or the price will be reduced.
P.S. btw nice escort website links below :)
I would say compute costs are the main bottleneck for me, especially the extra cost of running Windows (in Cloud Services or VMs). My app is very media-centric and needs a certain level of RAM and CPU. If there was a way to automatically vertically scale then I could save a lot of money during off-peak hours when I have virtually no traffic.
Coming from one of your major competitors, I just want to point out my frustrations with Azure. I will let you in on what your average customer from a competitor thinks:
1. There are so many variants of the same thing that I can't tell which is better or worse (to make matters worse, the explanations are awful)! Basic, Standard, or Premium plan? D series or A series? SQL Server Web or Standard license? A0 or A1? I wonder which one is good for me, oh I don't know!!! Wait, I know! BUY NOTHING. That's what went through my mind. Meanwhile, your competitors have made it SO EASY. All I had to do was choose ONE thing (i.e. the server instance type). Pricing, configuration, etc. was based on that one, simple thing. And it was WAY less expensive.
2. If Azure supports MySQL (for example), you have hidden it well! I don't see any option to create a database other than SQL Server. I don't want to pay $312.48/mo for a single 1 core, 768 MB RAM, SQL Server instance.
3. Windows instances are much more expensive than Linux. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Microsoft wanted more companies to develop for Windows? If so, why in the world would you price it so much more expensive than Linux? $55/mo for a single Windows A1 instance vs $32/mo for Linux? I wonder which stack we'd choose when the instances add up!
4. You're going to charge me for Multi-Factor Auth? In other words, you're going to charge me to secure my own dashboard with a FREE cellphone app? The app doesn't even cost you money. So, I must inquire, ARE YOU NUTS? It is your responsibility to ENCOURAGE people to be secure, NOT DETER THEM.
The world doesn't revolve around you. Sooner or later you will learn that the hard way if you don't evolve with your competitors.
Dan Friedman commented
This should be marked as "Completed" as costs have been reduced. If something more specific is needed, another suggestion should be created. Reducing costs will always be an ongoing request from customers and an ongoing effort from MS.
Ashish Kamdar commented
If salesforce.com can provide free and unlimited account for their developers, can Microsoft think of something creative to provide developers to play around and get familiar with the whole Azure portal experience
i do not want to worry about $$$ being spent/wasted while i am trying stuff out
You want and end to end encryption system where the storage provider has no access to your encryption keys. Spider Oak and Mega.co.nz both offer this. Keep in mind however that with these services, NOBODY can access your data except for you, and if you lose your private key, then your data is also lost, because nobody can get it back for you.
Hello. I used to use Dropbox, but I heard that their security policy is much more lax than I was led to believe. Apparently their employees have basically unlimited access to your files.The issue is that I'm a lawyer, and so I have an obligation to keep client files confidential. I'm not confident that Dropbox can meet my needs, so does anyone know of a similar cloud service that takes privacy seriously? I heard CloudBacko pro was good, but I wanted some suggestions. for more leaving a link below just check. http://www.cloudbacko.com/
Not sure if this uservoice site is still active.
I agree that even TODAY, storage and bandwidth are both too expensive.
Unfortunately, MySQL tiers are also expensive and do not provide sufficient TPS.