Packet's 0 server is Atom C2550 and costs 36$/month.
Scaleway C2S server is the same Atom C2550 but it costs ~$13/month.
Scaleway C2M is C2750 which has twice as much cores and costs ~20/month, so I am not seeing how it is possible for Packet 0 server to be "much more performant" when in fact Packet's offering is so much weaker.
We soft launched over a year ago and have a number of hosting industry insiders for customers, but are still working on the main, public facing website (domain just goes directly to an ordering page) as well as automation on the back end for near-instant provisioning. We'll be doing our official launch after that.
$0.05/GB may be cheaper than Amazon, but is rather expensive for bandwidth these days (would work out to approximately $10/Mb 95th percentile using a 200GB:1Mbps conversion ratio). With us, 2TB of bandwidth is included, and additional bandwidth is $0.002/GB or $0.40/Mb using a GTT/Tinet, Hurricane Electric, and Cogent bandwidth blend provided by my main hosting company's secondary/value network (AS63213).
Why not just use http://www.packet.net?
From the perspective of the user, wouldn't it be "more performant" to skip the gratuitous redirect, extra GET request and DNS lookups?
Maybe this is just marketing? Setting referrer, cookies? Fear of a thundering herd arising from an HN comment? Inadvertence? I don't understand.
Apologies for being so naive.
Also they're based in the US, so less latency for those of us with primary customer bases here. We use them at DNSFilter in NYC as part of our anycast network, for the last two months. Looking forward to their San Jose and Amsterdam datacenter expansions coming soon.