That's not the pitch. The pitch is that you're making people feel safer about spending money on your platform.

This is one of the fundamental things that make any sort of market work. If it's not safe to participate, people won't.

That's what the existing resource limits are for. AWS wants the customers for whom $1000 is a rounding error first and foremost. The DO-style $5-$500 / month customer is gravy on top and probably a future upsell.

That's really not true at Amazon. It's deep in their core values to cut customer expenses whenever possible, regardless of competitive pressures. I can't explain why they don't offer this feature, but I doubt it's because anyone is scared of a feature that could potentially help customers.

If that was true for AWS, their prices would be far lower pretty much across the board.

One of the most amazing feats Amazon has pulled off is to convince people that AWS is cheap. They're cheap in the way that Apple are: Only if you need a feature-set (or name recognition..) that excludes the vast majority of the competitors from consideration. If/when you truly need that, then they're the right choice. There are plenty of valid reason to pick AWS.

But they're very rarely the cheap choice.

It is cheap compared to setting up and running your own datacenter, S3 replacement, etc. You have to keep in mind that that's where the story started and continues to be, a lot of folks (the ones with $$$) see it as "no cloud vs cloud" not "DigitalOcean vs. Amazon".

(EDIT: To be clear I agree with you that that's the reason people often think that AWS is cheap)

Yes, but that's a false comparison. It's cheaper to rent dedicated servers at any of several dozens large hosting providers than it is to use EC2 or S3, for example. For most people it's cheaper to rent racks and lease servers too (but depending on your ___location, renting dedicated servers somewhere else might be cheaper - e.g. racks in London are too expensive to compete with renting servers from Hetzner most of the time, for example).

It's extremely rare, and generally requires very specific needs, that AWS comes out cheap enough to even be witting batting range of dedicates solutions when I price out systems.

When clients pick AWS, it's so far never been because it's been cheap, but because they sometimes value the reputation or value the feature set, and that's a perfectly fine reason to pick AWS.

The point isn't that people shouldn't use AWS, but that if people thing AWS is cheap, in my experience it means they usually haven't costed out alternatives.

It's an amazing testament to the brand building and marketing department of Amazon more than anything else.

AWS cuts their prices all the time. Every couple months an email comes out announcing price cuts for S3 or various EC2 instances.

And yet they're still far above most of the alternatives.

E.g. my object storage costs are 1/3 of AWS. My bandwidth costs are 1/50th or so of AWS prices.

There are valid reasons to use AWS depending on what exactly you do, but it's extremely rare for price to be one of them.

I'm always fascinated when someone mentions a paradox so I looked up "Jevon's Paradox".

The real economic term for this is elastic demand (specifically, relatively elastic demand). For example, microprocessor cost reductions make new applications possible, thus demand increased so much that the total amount spent on microprocessors went up for decades. Example of inelastic demand is radial tires. They last four times as long as bias ply tires. But since this didn't cause people to drive four times further, the tire industry collapsed on the introduction of radial tires.

Does anyone know an example of an actual paradox? I've never found one, and I'm curious if they really exist.

Are you sure?

Jevons's Paradox is about demand increasing for a resource when it becomes more efficient to use, e.g., someone invents an engine which can go twice as far with the same amount of fuel but instead of halving the demand for fuel the demand actually increases.

If I recall, elasticity of demand has to do with the relationship to supply. A very inelastic demand will cause people to consume the same rate no matter how much _supply_ is available. It doesn't have to do with the efficiency at which the resource is consumed like stated above. It's a subtle difference but I think they're actually quite distinct concepts.

Actual paradoxes are common. Just consider the classic: "This sentence is false".

Yes I'm sure. When coal becomes cheaper as a fuel (efficiency being one path), if that opens up new applications or use by a broader set of customers, it's no surprise at all that total revenue could go up.

As for your example, most sentences are neither true nor false. Nothing interesting has a probability of 0.000 or 1.000.

"This sentence is false" is clever use of language, may be interesting to sophomore philosophy students while smoking weed, but its not useful and there's nothing paradoxical about it.

Regarding your question about a paradox, what would qualify to you as "an actual paradox"? What is the definition against which you try a contender? Free free to look it up in a dictionary, but that probably won't help you generate a definition that makes "This statement is false" non-paradoxical. Note also that the etymology of paradox is "beyond strange", so historically the bar for qualifying is simply to be a idea or combination of ideas that is remarkably strange or surprising.

> most sentences are neither true nor false. Nothing interesting has a probability of 0.000 or 1.000.

I'll start by observing that surely you're talking about propositions, not sentences, nor utterances. Or at least you ought to be.

But more significantly, I'll note that most propositions are either true or false (under a given interpretive framework), but that as epistemologically-unprivileged observers, we must assign empirical propositions probabilities that are higher than 0 and lower than 1. Propositions like "I am a fish" or "You hate meat" or "If Rosa hates meat then Alexis is a fish" are either true or false, under any given set of meanings for the constituent words (objects, predicates, etc). I'm curious what probability you think applies to propositions like "2 + 2 = 4" and "All triangles have 3 sides" and "All triangles have less than 11 sides". I think there are very many interesting propositions that differ from these only in degree of complexity (e.g. propositions about whether or not certain code, run on certain hardware, under certain enumerable assumptions about the runtime, will do certain things).

Based on your very strange claim that all interesting sentences have non-zero non-unity probability, perhaps you're saying that you find theorems uninteresting, and moreover are only interested in statements of empirical belief, such as "I put the odds of the sun failing to rise tomorrow lower than one in a billion." In that case, I cannot imagine what statement interest would qualify as a paradox, except perhaps insofar as some empirical statements of belief are "beyond strange".

"This sentence is false" is a paradox under pretty much everyone's notion of a paradox.

> I'm curious what probability you think applies to propositions like "2 + 2 = 4" and "All triangles have 3 sides" and "All triangles have less than 11 sides".

Those are great examples, thanks. All true, and there's nothing interesting about them.

"All triangles have 3 sides" might be an uninteresting triviality, but "The sum of the squares of the lengths of the catheti is equal to the square of the length of the hypotenuse in a right-angled triangle" is neither trivial nor uninteresting and yet it has a probability of 1.

I love this example the most. It's the exception that proves the rule.

If you need to dig this hard to find something interesting with a probability of 1, that's pretty good evidence that the vast majority of interesting statements are not of the true/false variety.

Although I don't find it interesting, I am open-minded enough to ... embrace.. the .. uh.. diversity of the world, that allows some people, to find that interesting.

Pythagorean Theorem is "digging hard" and "not interesting"? Mind explaining?

The language that contains all Turing Machines that halt on all inputs is not decidable.

Or

e^(iy) = sin(y) + i * cos(y)

Are those uninteresting trivialities to you?

Yes, exactly. And "this code has a mathematical error in it" is often interesting, often non-trivial, and often has probability 1 (and often probability 0).

And these things are exactly the sort of thing that "differ from [trivialities about triangles] only in degree of complexity".

Note that "all triangles have 3 sides" is probably an axiom, but "all triangles have less than 11 sides" is a trivial theorem.

An actual paradox is an apparent paradox that you don't know how to resolve.

"This statement is not true."

"This statement is true, not."

AWS actually have a "pillar" of architecting called "Cost Optimization". Found it interesting in their GameDay at the AWS Reinvent conference they effectively punish solutions costing too much & being inefficient.