Don't they charge for every TB exceeding the included limit? (website says "For each additional TB, we charge € 1.19 in the EU and US, and € 8.81 in Singapore.")

They do, but the risk of having to pay $1.44/TB after the first 20TB is easier to swallow than say, CloudFront's ~$100/TB after 1TB.

> CloudFront's ~$100/TB after 1TB.

I had to double-check because that sounds hilariously wrong. I can't find it anywhere in the pricing. It's at most 0.08/TB.

Am I missing something?

You're missing the unit, it's $0.085 per GB, not TB, and that's only for NA/EU traffic. The rest of the world costs up to $0.12/GB so I averaged it to about $0.1/GB, or $100/TB.

They do offer progressively cheaper rates as you use more bandwidth each month, but that doesn't have much impact until you're spending comical amounts already.

Oh, yeah, egg on my face. They only put the unit of measurement at the top, and then talk about TB, so it's a bit deceptive. In retrospect, I was stupid to imagine 0.085/TB made any sense.

0.085/TB makes a lot of sense if you sell just with a 50 to 100% markup. But they rather sell at tens of thousands of markup to the real cost

Buckets are private by default.

And it's getting harder and harder to make them public because of people misconfiguring them and then going public against AWS when they discover the bill.

Because just using a cdn without proper caching headers is just another service you're paying for without any savings.

The real question is if they considered caching and thus configured it appropriately. If you don't, you're telling everyone you want every request to go to origin

Because not all uses for buckets fit that.

Buckets are used for backups, user uploads, and lots of things other than distributing files publicly.

I would say its probably not a good idea to make a bucket directly publicly accessible, but people do not do that.

A lot of the point of serverless is convenience and less admin and things like adding a layer in front of the bucket that could authenticate, rate limit etc. is not convenient and requires more admin.

> I'm glad I use a Hetzner VPS. I pay about EUR 5 monthly, and never have to worry about unexpected bills.

The trade-off being that your site falls over with some amount of traffic. That's not a criticism, that may be what you want to happen – I'd rather my personal site on a £5 VPS fell over than charged me £££.

But that's not what many businesses will want, it would be very bad to lose traffic right at your peak. This was a driver for a migration to cloud hosting at my last company, we had a few instances of doing a marketing push and then having the site slow down because we couldn't scale up new machines quickly enough (1-12 month commitment depending on spec, 2 working day lead time). We could quantify the lost revenue and it was worth paying twice the price for cloud to have that quick scaling.