We don't buy the clouds. We give them to the customers and our customers buy the tenants, the subscriptions. They are aware of the license documents with Amazon and the other cloud vendors. Once we have the subscription of a customer, we do the technical implementation.

We don't get into procurement or subscription renewals or product updates or anything like that. We are more on the technical side.

The price tends to be higher, but that is a usual case when prioritizing reliable backup solutions for servers and other infrastructure. In the cloud, costs are incurred based on usage, meaning that additional charges apply for each service utilized.

It's a bit expensive but stable and easy to use. Licensing fees depend on the contract. It can be monthly or on-demand resources.

The solution's pricing depends on your traffic since they charge you based on the traffic, not the servers. The price can go into many, many thousands depending on the traffic.

The price also depends on your services since, if you are using Amazon Rekognition or S3 with a low tier price.

The pricing may vary and is often influenced by marketing strategies.

The solution is expensive, and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

The solution should improve the pricing. The area that I work for is expensive. The product is cheap when we start using it. It provides AWS Free Tier. However, it is not the same when you work continuously with Amazon. We end up paying a lot at the end of every month. 

The pricing depends on the traffic because they charge by the traffic. They do not charge us based on servers. The price also depends on the services we use. It would be different if we used S3.

The tool is expensive.

Pricing definitely isn't high; I would rate the pricing a five out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

AWS pricing is quite competitive. AWS is cost-effective because it saves time. Faster deployments and testing make it very valuable. Pricing isn't the main thing; it's more about getting things done efficiently. Then, engineers can discover additional savings within AWS itself.

So, it's more flexible. We save a lot of time thanks to AWS

I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, with ten being the most expensive. It's pricier than Linode, which has a fixed price and it is still a pay-as-you-go service. While for,  AWS, over time, it gets expensive. 

Linode is much cheaper and good for small businesses. 

It's good for big players like Fortune 500 companies, but smaller companies struggle. My friend's company even left AWS due to costs. So, for smaller companies, it's expensive.

The tool’s pricing is reasonable.

In comparison to Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure, the database offered by Amazon AWS is relatively expensive. However, the database also offers rich features.

I rate the price of Amazon AWS a six out of ten.

Amazon AWS is on the cheaper side, as their pricing is more competitive. There are no additional costs besides the license. However, Azure sells Microsoft licenses, so they have an advantage. 

The pricing of AWS was attractive for us, so that's something that's okay at least for this transaction-based system. However, we still have some concerns about more data-driven applications or those that involve a lot of heavy uploading and downloading. So our whole data warehouse is still something that would not go into the cloud because of the pricing model. So if you stayed pretty much in the cloud, that's fine.

The pricing depends on the workload. For example, if your workload involves Windows technologies, AWS may not be the most cost-effective option. In that case, you might be better off with Azure. 

But if you're working with open-source technologies, then AWS can be a good choice. They have their own process called RabbitMQ, which is an on-premises architecture where you can recompile all your applications to run on your own infrastructure. This can significantly reduce your costs compared to other hyperscalers like Google, Oracle, or Azure.

So, it would be worth my money to go with Amazon AWS at the end of the day. However, if it's a Windows-based workload, I wouldn't recommend AWS.

Much faster than other solutions at a super low cost.

One of the best-kept ways to reduce costs is to develop it on serverless technologies with AWS Lambda, SNS, DynamoDB, and S3. Business example: By deploying our websites on Amazon S3 instead of the traditional Apache web servers, we eliminated many of the compute costs. Our WordPress site is served by a static S3 bucket. One of the benefits of this is our sites are superfast, especially with CloudFront. CloudFront makes the S3 hosted sites available across the world in milliseconds, reducing network hops and costs similar to that of Akamai. 

Just imagine the headaches associated with Apache web servers, MySQL databases, and Nginx reverse proxies? 

For the initial 12 months, the solution is reasonably priced. On enterprise license contracts where you negotiate, have been reasonable too.

We saw a lot of cost savings when we switched over to AWS. It can really save a company a lot of money.

It's not very pricey, but it could be cheaper. There are other options like GoDaddy and HostGator.

There are various options, and some can be cheaper than paying a full license.

It is quite expensive in my very personal opinion. Going on-prem in a data center is, for sure, not as expensive as going to AWS, but when it comes to a point where you are raising and growing, it simply makes a lot of sense to stay in AWS. It is awesome in that way. I am not aware of any extra costs.

Licensing options are either a monthly pay for use option or a contract option.

They have a pay-as-you-go subscription. You pay only for the time you use the service. By service, I mean that they are not frequently used by clients. It's the best idea because they are very expensive to them because if it's a small company and you have the option of pay as you go as a solution, it would be less expensive, and better for the company in terms of saving money.

However, if some large clients, for example, use AWS as a hosting provider and compare their prices with other hosting providers, other hosting providers are more affordable. 

I believe that a pay-as-you-go solution is very inexpensive, but not for monthly or fixed prices.

When compared to GCP, Google, or Azure, the price could be lower.

As a company and a platinum sponsor, we know exactly where management will make a decision on getting the best price for us.

A monthly fee is a good option for a startup company or an individual, and it is paid yearly for larger organizations.

The solution can get rather pricey. It should be more reasonable. It's our main complaint about the product - the total cost of ownership is just too high.

We aren't buying licenses, we are buying cloud services. 

They have different pricing models for each suite of services. For example, if you are with EC2; E2 has spot instances and EC2 has on instances. You can pay upfront or you can reserve an instance.

You can pay upfront or you can on an annual basis for certain machines, and you can keep them up which you get quite a competitive discount.

You can take spot instances, as in certain predefined instances, that you can spin up when you need it, but those ten to be expensive because it's ad-hoc.

You can also just go with the normal EC2 instances that are charged at the usual pricing rate.

For us, it's use-case specific and we move between all three pricing options.

Price can always be cheaper.

You are not paying a licensing fee, you pay for consumption. You pay for your consumption and it' is typically paid on a monthly basis.

It's a pay-as-you-go model.

Some services are expensive, but the basic infrastructure services are a platform that is reasonably priced.

I think it should be less expensive. There are many variables involved in pricing, such as data transfer, and several other things. 

You have to be very precise, and really detailed, and account for each and every thing. Only then can you do an estimation of how much the application hosting will cost you. You can't afford to be missing a single piece.

There are a lot of pieces that get embedded into costing for each service. So, it's complicated, and I really wish it should have been simpler.

I work on the technology side, I don't work on the financial side. Therefore, I really don't have any clue how much it costs.

From a cost perspective, Amazon AWS is excellent. You need to pay for a license to use AWS, and the license could be cheaper, but in each of the cases and instances I've used AWS, there has been a good chance to save money. 

AWS is pay as you go.

We are just a customer. We just pay monthly for the subscription cost. I mean, hardly $50. We are a very small company. 

I would advise others to work from an architecture overview. 

Be aware of the very powerful schema-less data services in the cloud. They can help remove the need for data warehouses - e.g. multi-TB datasets - can be read, joined, queried and made to output daily reports within minutes, on temporary clusters, and that cost less than USD1000 per month. This is compared to the hundreds of thousands of USD for data warehouse licensing costs, plus the schema design time and ongoing DevOps they require.

Moving to serverless operations in the cloud frees up your people to deliver business services rather than spend days and days on administering data centers and the associated concerns that come with them.

Licensing can be purchased on a yearly basis, which is an auto-renewal. We also have an on-demand on-pay purchase.

If, for example, we have provisions for other things and we have a three-peak season then we add more core, more hardware for the on-premises machines. During those periods it is on-demand but the rest of the time it is licensed with a yearly subscription.

The pricing is reasonable.

The Oracle licensing is higher than it is with Amazon AWS.

Amazon AWS is offering different pricing, and saving plans, it's very easy for a customer to consider the Amazon AWS service.

Amazon AWS charges based on the user usage and some software license, such as the OS are included in their monthly charge. The transparency is quite sufficient, the customer knows what they're paying for.

The usage fees are an OPEX and they are offered monthly or annually.

It seems to be reasonable. It's the first one that I've used as a cloud platform, so they've set the benchmark for me, and now, I'm comparing everything else to them.

Licensing fees are only applicable if you're using Red Hat or an Oracle database. You have to pay for both of those. If you're using Postgres or MySQL, there are no costs for the actual database application. There are no fees for individuals using Oracle Java, but businesses pay a license. We use an OpenJDK that is vetted by Atlassian so if you don't want to buy Java you can use the OpenJDK.

The pricing is one of the best in the segment.

They have actually reduced their prices, with the exception of the MLD which has increased.

It's by design itself.

They have placed the pricing well for a reduced market.

The solution is on a pay-as-use pricing model. The price of the solution could always be better but it is priced competitively.

What is hard with the public cloud service like AWS, is ensuring you maintain a good budget. Plan the monthly consumption properly. If you don't have the expertise in the cloud, your monthly cost can go very high. It's also very easy to set up services in AWS.

I would also suggest companies look for a good partner that has the necessary experience to deploy the services when moving to the cloud. It's very simple, but you need to design a very good architecture for cost optimization and performance.  

We need to pay for everything. If someone is a personal user, they get one year free. But if you are using this as a professional or enterprise solution, then your company has to pay. The license pricing is comparable to that of competitors'. 

Amazon AWS has pay-as-you-go options available.

The solution is expensive compared to other providers because you need many of the services and it can add up fast.

The calculating of costs is quite difficult. There are all kinds of variables to consider and it's all very unclear.

It's my understanding that our company is charged a few hundred dollars on a monthly basis.

Cloudflare and other services are developing more affordable solutions. They provide a much cheaper alternative to Amazon's S3 storage buckets. That's something that could be improved.

This should be comparable to the other options on the market.

Billing for cloud services can be difficult at times. In the VPS, you only have quota-based billing management, but in the cloud, it's as if every bit and byte and every I/O operation is metered, and your bills can be surprisingly high when you've published something that can attract a lot of traffic, which is one catch.

We are on an annual subscription for Amazon AWS.

The cost depends on the usage and applications. If you're hosting thousands of applications, you'll be paying tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to usage fees, you have to factor in the costs of development teams and the staff you need to support the applications. These are the three costs you need to kind of calculate to decide on the budget.

The costs could always be lowered.

How often we pay can vary, depending on the exact service. We pay, for example, both yearly and monthly.

The pricing can be very difficult to determine due to the fact that there is so much selection.

The pricing of Amazon AWS is high compared to any other cloud provider.

The pricing is good and it's set up as a pay-as-you-go. It's not overly expensive. 

If I was going to compare the cost of Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure, they are approximately the same.

A license is required. Some customers will provide their own license and others will purchase it directly from AWS.

It is most cost-effective to go for a long-term license option, that way you get a better deal for the cloud. 

Its pricing can be simplified a little bit more. Even though they have been reducing it, I still believe they can do better as compared to GCP, Google Cloud.

This is a subscription-based product.

This is not an expensive product but it would be an improvement if the price were cheaper. Google Cloud, for example, is cheaper.

Its price is kind of okay. When we do a migration from on-premises to the cloud, we typically use the lift-and-shift model. Based on the studies that we have done, cost savings are definitely there when we moved from on-premises to the cloud.

Pricing has been quite surprising, since we are running both DEV and UAT platforms simultaneously. It is definitely cheaper than the solution that has been managed by the third-party.

The licensing costs is billed monthly.

You do need to pay for a license. We pay a monthly fee in order to use the product.

The price is quite reasonable.

With Amazon AWS, you pay as you go.

When it comes to pricing, not all applications require that much performance. That's the reason why other cloud markets are also catching up, because the two predominantly high-performance platforms, AWS and GCP, are almost the same.

Looking at the primary market for AWS, I see that there's a lot of customers who have only mid-level performance requirements, because you will have all these normal applications such as online auction websites, gaming applications, voice applications, and so on. These are not, for example, large monitoring applications, financial independents, or brick and mortar companies. So AWS caters to about 40% of the market when it comes to general applications.

As it happens, in many cases, you simply don't need the high-performance offerings from AWS, nor the innovative products from Google Cloud Platform, which can come with large price tags.

Licensing is on a yearly basis. I believe we are satisfied with the current pricing. Otherwise, we would have switched to another vendor.

The product is an a la carte service. It offers a set of microservices that are associated with it. Therefore, the solution pricing varies quite a bit.

The pricing could be more competitive. If a company is questioning whether it's cheaper than owning a server yourself and running a server yourself, the general answer to the total cost of ownership is yes, it is cheaper. However, if you have to move data around a lot, it will not be cheaper.

The pricing is expensive. 

We pay about $20,000 per month, and the license is all-inclusive. 

The pricing model of Amazon AWS is very good because there is an option to pay for what you use only, you do not have to give any money upfront to use it. However, we have some instances where we are on a monthly plan.

When you compare Amazon AWS to Microsoft Azure, the pricing of both is almost the same. There are some instances when one is cheaper than the other in one area but it is difficult to pinpoint which one is cheaper because it depends upon a lot of factors, such as the use case. However, the overall price of both solutions could be reduced.

The cost is moderate. It's not overly expensive.

The cost structure could be better. It needs to be more transparent. After COVID, it is competing directly with Azure - which is a bit more of a cost-effective option. It's also competing directly with Google. If they were cheaper, they would be much more competitive in the space.

From a licensing perspective, the cost of ownership is based on usage. 

The prices are somewhat on the higher side. It would help if they can bring it down, especially for the sporting segment and for on-demand instances.

The solution is set up as a pay-as-you-go. It's very convenient.

The pricing could always be better, but it's pretty darn good. We're looking into some options for some pricing improvements through some Amazon partners.

There are not any additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

When it comes to professional certification in AWS, I implore others to study hard before your exams because $300 is a painful waste of money if you fail.

With AWS products, there is a steep learning curve and I think there are so many aspects because it is really an ecosystem. If you are committed to reducing costs, or increasing performance, or optimizing in any manner, you have to know the solution really well.

I think the best way to achieve this is by experience, but if you don't have any experience, studying hard is the next best thing to do.

I don't handle the licensing side of things and therefore cannot comment on the price of the solution.

It is comparable if you add in the price structure to an on-prem solution.

Technical support is expensive to use.

In terms of price, there are less expensive options. 

We are using open source technology, so there is no licensing. 

We have a monthly subscription for Amazon AWS.

We use their subscription model.

The solution could always be cheaper. 

We have a monthly recurring cost based on usage.

When I first started using the solution I used a free trial, and then we upgraded to a pay-as-you-go subscription. We have an allocated budget of $50. I am happy with the pricing because the free trial project helped me progress. In our country, there are limitations for what payment methods we can use, we do not support PayPal, and credit card transactions are delayed. Hopefully, this gets better in the future. However, in other countries, this is not a widespread problem.

The Free Tiers program is great for testing solutions.

Their terms of licencing and reserved instances are very efficient (like Spot Instances for identified workloads).

It is decently priced. The competition is also bringing its own cloud offerings, such as from Oracle.

AWS is scalable depending on your needs so pricing is dependant on what you use. Just be careful not to leave VMs running as you can find your next monthly bill a little higher than normal - AWS did cover that with billing alarms so it's not all bad news.

Amazon AWS is a bit more expensive than Oracle.

We pay monthly licensing fees.

Pricing is an area that can be improved because it is very complicated. It considers the number of processes, bandwidth, and different kinds of usage. This makes it difficult to predict. When we receive an invoice, there are always surprises. Now that we have used it for a long time, we have more information and are better able to estimate it.

Licensing of this solution is paid on a yearly basis.

Have to watch price/billing creep, but there are tools to watch and monitor your usage and billing.  

Its price should be lower. Currently, the price is the same if you are working in-house or in production. If you have to do internal testing or you are checking if things are working in-house, you need to pay for that, and the price is the same. The price for in-house usage should be different from production usage.

The prices are a bit high. But they are the first ones on the market to really do this and they have a monopoly on it.

Depending on what you get, you will have to pay for a license. For example, if you get SQL Server, which is a Microsoft product, you need to pay for a license. If you get other products, you may have to get a license. They will provide that or they will sell it to you.

In some instances, it may be, that you bring your own licenses.

AWS pricing Reasonable & affordable by any business size, Small, Medium or large. 

It can get quite pricey at times. Because of the patterns we're attempting to use, it becomes very expensive. Where we can save money by using Google components or Microsoft components, we can go much cheaper.

You must pay a licensing fee, which is based on the usage.

Essentially, it is determined by how we use the services. There are sometimes are a soft service, sometimes we pay yearly, and sometimes we pay as we use it.

There is a license fee that you need to pay. There are flexible payment options. For example, you can pay monthly if you want to.

AWS is like all the other cloud providers. They're all like vacuum salesmen, where they come in, and they say, "Do you want to buy this hose or this vacuum?" And you're like, "Yeah, it's not that expensive. It's a hose." And then they say, "How about these extra bags?" And you're like, "Okay. I'll buy the bags. It's not that much." Then, at the end of the day, you've bought an entire vacuum store's worth of stuff. You don't know upfront what it will cost, but they have cost calculators and other things like that.

You'll probably experience some sticker shock with AWS. You attempt to understand the cost, but you don't realize what you're paying until you get your first bill. I don't know if Amazon does that on purpose, but costs can get out of control quickly if you don't have someone who specializes in AWS cost management.

I don't even know how many microservices they have now. It seems like hundreds, so what do you do. What would you tell them to do with Aurora compared to their other stuff? There's just so much there that it's tough to get a comprehensive understanding of what you're getting into with AWS. And that's just the nature of AWS. It's a giant ecosystem. Azure is the same. I'm not familiar with GCP, but I'm sure it's the same. They do their best to make it as clean as possible from a sales perspective, but the AWS sticker shock is real.

I'm not sure about the exact costs. When I used to do stuff with Commvault and stuff, I knew the ingress and egress fees and the data cost for storage on AWS, but that was a long time ago.

There is no licensing cost. 

It's an expensive product.

I cannot speak to the licensing questions, but the pricing per GB/month is reasonable and competitive.

As mentioned above, AWS does not really have initial setup costs. It's like a utility company; you use the service, and pay for your usage. The daily cost is dependent upon the service being deployed at that point in time. For the flexibility, and consistent cutting edge technology that AWS operates on, it's well worth the price.

You pay for a license, and that's how you get your own account. These are usually not individual licenses, but rather for a group of people. I think these licenses come at some volume, but I don't know many details about the licensing. 

AWS pricing is higher than other services.

I'm not sure about the licensing. I don't know what kind of subscription the university bought. I imagine it's similar to Cognizant, which had a usage-based mechanism. We bought yearly subscriptions for specific servers while pre-booking some of the server-based storage or computing infrastructure.

The price of the Virtual Desktop service from Amazon AWS could improve, it is more expensive than competitors. The pricing model we are using is pay-as-you-go. You only pay for what you use.

The technical support from Amazon is extra and there are more than 200 services you can use that has a cost.

While some clients will take a monthly subscription, we tend to do an SLA reseller with them for a one-year or three-year contract.

We can't complain about the pricing. So far, it doesn't seem to be too expensive.

For our infrastructure, the cost is approximately $25 per device, and you have to include the other tools that we have in the cloud, for a total of approximately $200,000 per year. Our tools included several databases and Kubernetes. If the price was a little bit cheaper, I would consider this solution to be a ten out of ten.

If you want to move all production loads to AWS, the fastest way forward is lift and shift (which is what we did). However, this may prove to be more expensive than bare metal until the time the solution is updated to use the different AWS services. For example, when we shifted the load to AWS we paid a high cost as the mail stores were hosted on EBS. The storage cost drastically reduced after moving to S3.

Be careful with your consumption, especially when you are testing things. Costs can creep up on you relatively fast, without even noticing.

The pricing is reasonable and comparable to similar services when run on-premise.

The solution could be more cost-effective. 

The price of the solution is reasonable.

If you can plan capacity for one or three years, you can use the upfront payment option which allows you to save up to 50%.

The pricing is fair. We don't have any issues with the pricing.

The pricing and licensing are good. It's a bit better than, for example, Azure. They have a different model for charging clients. 

Technical support costs extra. It could be cheaper.

The licensing cost varies with the project involved. Certain projects run around $6,000 per month, some less and others more. We handled many projects, each with its own complexities and specifications. The price ranges of the licenses varies with the complexity of the project. 

The price could be lower. Currently, we spend between $300 to $1,000 dollars a month to use this solution. We try to avoid using a license if we can.

On demand, pay-as-you-go pricing is powerful to optimize expenses, but it’s important to keep a technical cost controlling function aware of usage and scale patterns to choose the best pricing mix.

Massive migration to cloud without analyzing the right service for the right usage can lead to higher cost than expected. It is important to get the right advice to match each use case needed to the optimum cloud economics.

Even if a lot of decisions to go to the cloud are based in the promise of lower costs, the true power of cloud services is their flexibility, rate of innovation, and avoiding vendor lock-in if architected consciously.

Even if a lift and shift approach with short schedules can lead to mistakes in choosing services and paying more than optimum, the speed in which you can correct the mistake is not comparable to any other infrastructure option.

This is forcing even the traditional hardware vendors to reinvent their business models and develop financial offerings that include operating expense based financing (pay-as-you-grow) or services based agreements (pay-as-you-go) to make their private cloud offerings competitive.

The other aspect to consider is the managed service required to get the most of this platform. Don’t underestimate the quality of the advice and support required. But at the same time, consider your core business management time released by adopting a platform instead of managing the components internally.

The internal expertise should evolve to understand how to use it best for the business outcomes pursued instead of the technicalities of how to make it. That’s where the right partnerships can be leveraged.

It's a costly product.

We pay a monthly licensing fee. It's below $100 a month.

The licensing costs are all similar. All charges are similar in nature, such as storage cost, compute cost, VM cost, or VP costs, and all those things. Two advantages on this point here are whether you take Spot Instances or if you reserve for long term usage, then you'll get a lot of benefit.

If you want to use any third party services you have to pay from the Marketplace, but the other things are all pay-as-you-go kind of a model.

In terms of price, it is more expensive than other cloud providers, but it is worth it. It is not that much more, so you can go with it. It's not too bad. It's more expensive than the others, but it's bearable.

The solution can get to be expensive.

What attracted us was the on-demand pricing. It's a pay-per-use model.

It is costly, but when you use the pay-per-use model, it is cheaper.

The price could be cheaper, but it's better than what is available.

Amazon AWS is really cost-effective. But the number of choices that you have to make can make the pricing very difficult. You have so many options, so it can be quite difficult to get into pricing.

There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees. 

The price of the solution can get expensive. They could work to lower it for their clients.

Those that use the licensing do need to pay a fee. It can be paid on a yearly or monthly basis.

The pricing of Amazon is higher than that of SalesForce. We thought that things would be cheaper when it comes to Mexico and that a connection would be made between the facilities and SalesForce. 

This is a subscription-based service and there are licensing fees.

Considering the kind of services they provide and the space they play in, compared to other solutions like Microsoft and Google, I think they've done a pretty good job with their pricing. The pricing tiers; I like the way that they have dynamically structured the pricing mechanism; however, for small players, it's pretty expensive.

They're a successful company so I suppose many clients are willing to pay that kind of money for the services that they provide.

Unfortunately, the price is high. The pricing and licensing is explained well in the documentation.

The way AWS assigns prices is fully understandable and very transparent. Users are free to choose exactly what they need. They receive accordingly and there is no pain at devolution. It is all done by themselves.

It is not the cheapest one, but there is a good ratio between the quality of service and the pricing. Its price is good for me.

Amazon AWS could have more options and transparency in its pricing model. You need in-depth knowledge to adopt AWS. So someone without that knowledge base might not understand all of the costs associated with AWS.

With the enterprise product, you have to pay for a license, however, if you are using the open-source version, you don't pay to license it.

It is subscription-based, and we are happy with its pricing.

It's expensive.

It should be cheaper.

It would be ideal if the solution cost the customer less. It's expensive right now.

AWS is appropriate for professional solutions. For other types of projects it's a bit expensive.

I find Amazon AWS very expensive compare to Microsoft Azure.

It could be cheaper, and Amazon could also be more transparent with its pricing. I would first expect any product vendor to give me the utmost transparency on pricing information. There shouldn't be any hidden costs.

Their service offerings have a bit of segmentation, and they focus more on SMBs. They brought them onto the cloud and encouraged them to use solutions on the cloud. But strategically, they should probably improve that and offer some credits.

The pricing of the solution is quite good. It's very reasonable and very affordable.

That said, I don't deal with billing and licensing directly and therefore don't have the exact numbers in relation to how much we pay.

AWS is expensive and the cost should be reduced.

It is very expensive, you have to be very cautious.

Licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis.

While you may have to pay for some of the product kits, it's a monthly fee for everything.

A few of our customers pay for it yearly and monthly. Sometimes, when it's related to the data, the pricing seems to be high. It could be cheaper on a transactional basis.

The price of the solution is fair compared to competitors.

Its pricing model is too complex.

It is much more expensive than any other cloud provider.

We pay for Amazon AWS annually.

We are currently paying for the solution on an annual basis.

The pricing is confusing. Sometimes there are hidden charges.

We are not happy with the general price and find most of Amazon's products to be quite expensive. 

The price, in general, could be better.

The price is quite good; it is a pay-as-you-go option.

It's expensive. It costs you an arm and a leg. It's just about your expertise to do it on-prem versus in the cloud. I think it's more cost-effective to do it on-prem, but not everybody has a lab or the capital equipment budget to staff a lab. So, they are defaulting to using a service.

That's the trade-off. If you're going to scale, most of the time, people are going to build it in-house. To get development started and to get things moving quickly, the cloud providers offer a valuable service. The biggest charge is for storage, moving data back and forth, and the ingress and egress charges.

I find that Amazon AWS is expensive.

Before choosing you can read other opinions and opt for the best tool that has aesthetic value and focus that is on par with Amazon AWS.

I pay for a yearly license to use this product. 

The license for Amazon AWS is expensive. I am currently using the free version.

Pricing, I would rate a five out of ten. AWS is very expensive.

It's paid on a monthly basis and you have to pay for the resources that you use.

There is no licensing in AWS, you pay per usage.

The price for AWS is good.

The price can be better. 

Pricing is reasonable, but as your usage goes up, AWS has a provision for businesses, and there's an option of locking it for three years. 

I think that they also give discounts. Although, as your scale of operation goes up, I think the price probably becomes too high.

As a startup business, it's very well priced, but if a number of transactions go up, clients have voiced that they are in a situation and feel a type of pressure and desire to move out of AWS.

They feel this way only once the scale of operation goes beyond a critical mass or critical threshold. It becomes a completely managed service beyond a point, and then it no longer remains cost-effective. Our usage goes up as well as the monthly recurring costs.

So the price is something they should definitely look at. They should look at some kind of cost or price optimization, as the scale grows up large, the more the economies of scale keep in. They should try to become more competitive.

One of the best things in Amazon AWS is you are billed for the service you use. 

AWS is a cloud service, so it's pay-as-you-go.  Some of the storage services could be cheaper.

The price is good and licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis.

Due to currency fluctuations in Turkey, we find the product to be on the more expensive side. There are other, cheaper options on the market.

Read the fine print carefully and always engage experts to carry out migration.

The costing model is very confusing.

The cost is on a monthly basis. 

We are happy with the pricing.

The solution is on a subscription-based model, and it is pay-as-you-go. The price could be cheaper.

I think the pricing becomes a problem as the IT organization grows. They need to give better pricing when companies grow.

We are happy with the pricing.

AWS is much too expensive compared to current on-premises solution for this type of work. AWS IaaS is a very generic service, which is extremely overpriced.  

Pricing is good.  It's average.

The price could be better.

There is a cost for any components you get.

AWS is not an expensive product.

Free tier is always there for demo and testing. Pricing is based on the usage.

Pay per use.