I find the cost to be reasonable. It's fair.

The pricing of this solution is variable.  There is an open-source variant that is accessible via the public cloud, and then tiers that range in price depending on the level and amount of usage that is required.

The license fee for Amazon EC2 is higher than its competitors.

The cost varies depending on how many instances you have and how long you run it. Our most recent customers were running around four instances, and their bill was between $1,500 to $2,000.

Amazon EC2 is a very expensive solution.

They raise prices yearly. You have to pay extra for support, which is also expensive. 

I use the free tier, although I have paid for some services that are not free. The overall cost of this solution depends on the services you use. 

The price of EC2 is on the higher end. There is no license. You pay for server data and usage like Amazon RDS.

The use of Amazon EC2 does not incur any licensing fees. Instead, we only pay for the number of computing resources that we utilize. However, if we require enhanced technical support, an additional fee may apply.

I've found the pricing to be very expensive. I find it pricey compared to other options. 

The solution has different pricing models, and its cost differs when you purchase it for one year or three years.

There is no cost involved for EC2, but sometimes you need to pay for products you run within it.

You need to pay additional costs If you're using a lot of outbound Bandwidth. It is difficult to predict the cost, so I suggest setting up account budgets and notifications if you exceed your budget.

Amazon EC2 is a pay-as-you-go service.

If we already have the script and everything available, the deployment takes no more than half an hour. We already have the templates, but the template development, the scripts, all the tools development will take some time, maybe a month or so depending on the use case. But, once you have them set up, it's basically a matter of 15 minutes to half an hour.
There were no annual or monthly licensing costs as it's completely based on usage. Depending on how many hours of use, the instance we run, and the storage we use, you get a very detailed account of usage in your billing document. 

I think Amazon EC2 has fair pricing. I actually think the pricing is manageable. I have Free Tiers, as well. You can get on the Free Tier pricing and they just charge you for data storage.

The cost is moderate. It's not too high or too low. It's based on usage. While using AWS cloud ensures there are no hidden costs, if you use other clouds, there might be.

When we did the deployment of Amazon EC2 we found it to be less expensive than other solutions.

The price of Amazon EC2 could improve. The Google Cloud Platform is more cost-effective.

We pay for Amazon EC2 monthly.

The price is reasonable, but there is definitely an opportunity to lower it in instances which are of a higher configuration, because they have been typically used for the long term. There should be custom plans that cater to certain customers who have their uses. The reserved instances prices for SQL server are not that great. We definitely look for such things. 

We are exploring different managed database services, like RDS and Serverless Aurora. There is a scope of implementation on those services, which are pretty new, and most capabilities which are available in instance-based services are not available in Aurora Serverless.

The pricing is too complex. I can't understand it. If I have a service and want to launch in AWS, I need to know what it would cost to run it over the course of the year. I need to know the cost of bandwidth and storage. They need to lay out what they are charging and what clients can expect. 

I think this is a very expensive solution and I would like it to be cheaper.

EC2 is a little expensive. 

Licensing costs are paid monthly for the whole package. That includes the resources that the server is utilizing, plus the operating system along with any database license, such as Microsoft SQL, that you are using. It's quite expensive.

We'd like the solution to be cheaper. 

We pay a monthly fee for licensing. I'd rate the pricing five out of ten. 

You pay as you use it.

The licensing of Amazon EC2 is expensive. Microsoft Windows Servers are expensive to license.

I am using the tier three Amazon service. I am not going to use another solution other than Amazon EC2 because here in Pakistan there are some payment issues for solutions abroad.

The clients have found the billing of Amazon EC2 good, but the price could be less high. There is a monthly subscription to use the solution.

We have difficulty convincing potential clients of the benefits of using Amazon EC2, from their on-premise setup, when the cost is similar. They don't see the benefits. We face a lot of issues convincing them

The costs are quite high. For our usage, the cost is approximately $20,000 to $23,000 per month.

Amazon EC2 has a pay-as-you-use cost model.

Reducing the price of the solution could lead to an improvement.

We are using a pay-as-you-go model.

We pay for a monthly license. The price is fair.

The cost of the product is reasonable. It’s not overly expensive.

We need to pay a monthly license fee for the product. The pricing also depends on the type of instance we use. Reserved Instances are dedicated to a single user and cost more. If we use Spot Instances, we must pay for what we use. It will be added to our monthly bill. It is not an expensive solution.

We have a monthly primary account that pays for the licensing, with multiple accounts below it. So whenever we want to have a new solution, we create a new account under the paying account.

The cost varies from machine to machine. When we create a machine, they estimate how much it will cost. It is more expensive than other products.

There is a license required to use this solution and we pay on a monthly basis.

The pricing is fine. It's not too expensive.

That said, if you don't have the right model in place, then the cost factor could be one thing that people need to think about because it's based on usage. For example, how long the server is up and running will contribute to the cost.

The model needs to be very concrete and work on how we want to use it. Based on that, if these factors are not known and if you don't take care of this, then the cost factor might go up as so it'll only take that one week to take care of any issues. We've never faced such a scenario because we are very clear on how we want to use it every time.

Pricing appears to be cheap, however, it is extremely difficult in calculating what something will cost. Someone accidentally starting a EC2 server could end up costing you notable dollars. Also once you start using services, let's say serverless architecture, you may quickly find you need to build dirty solutions just to keep the price down, or even go back to server based solutions due to costings.

This is not an expensive solution. 

Price is attractive, but at a large scale not so cheap, especially if you use many services. Regarding licensing, we don't have any issue with it.

It's expensive, and it could be cheaper.

We're charged depending on the run time, but there are other costs as well, including costs for transactions and storage.

EC2 pricing is somewhat transparent, in that AWS provides pricing for all instance types. However, the number of pricing options can be confusing, i.e., on demand vs reserved vs spot vs dedicated. It would be great if AWS provided a real-time calculator that displayed your estimated usage for a period of time, then notified you before you exceeded your estimated costs. Licenses for some instance types can be included or use BYOL, depending on the vendor.