I believe Amazon is more robust if your website gets hit by a lot of traffic.

keep in mind S3 bandwidth is roughly 20~30x more expensive than a VPS.

I put my photo/video blog on S3 reasoning that it'll handle spikes better. At one point it reached the front page of HN and cost me $450. Afterward I looked at the logs and found that my single $20 linode would have handled it fine...

Definitely depends on your requirements. AWS can indeed charge a bit for bandwidth.

But if you're talking about small static websites, AWS gives you an easy interface, Cloudfront, Route53, etc. It's a very easy way to do some very complex things.

You might also look into billing alarms. I've got some simple background jobs that I run on lambda, pulling some files to S3 every hour. It costs me a buck or two a month. But if it ever looks like it might charge me $20, it will alarm and email me.

I assume you mean data transfer rather than bandwidth, but an often overlooked factor nonetheless.