Inappropriate Pricing for Managed Services
First off, it's great to see how Azure as a platform developed and new features keep coming. However, while, in contrast to the competition, VM pricing is adequate, flexible and scalable, managed services are not.
Azure's competitive advantage are especially the managed services, offering a safe and straightforward configuration of the underlying systems. There is no doubt that managed services give the users and developers an added value. Developers don't want to "loose" time with redundant work that incurred building systems on top of IaaS. However, I don't see the proportion charging a multiple of the VMs prices for the same virtual hardware with management service. Moving from 1-3 VMs with load balancing and a geo-replicated cost-effective CDN to a managed load-balanced service cluster (e.g., Web Apps, Cloud-based Databases, Processing, and Security Services such as WAF) is way overpriced. The same, when you compare Kubernetes service to Container Instances. The same with Cosmos DB.
I'm mixing things up a little bit, sure, but still, there is no proportionality in the pricing. The average fixed costs for developing such managed services should be comparably low as the largest software company on the market, so why charge more for these services, just because the service portfolio coverage is the densest?
A good example is the WAF Gateway. If you charged only based on GB, it would be fair, but why do you additionally charge per gateway when the hardware resources could be or are even shared amongst all users? OWASP isn't even an exclusive feature. There are CDN providers and web server extensions giving similar functionality.
With new features coming up, I'm more and more confused, if you develop these, do you want the target group that currently use other providers or your VMs to migrate to these systems or is it just for show?