I doubt that will happen. Very few people list that as their deal breaker, and it's their entire business model. If egress were cheap you could easily load balance between providers.
Apple reaps 100% of the PROFITS. They are effectively a natural monopolist. Who cares about money-losing Android customers??? [praying I don't start some juvenile iOS/Android flame war]
I've never asked this before but why did my post above get so many downvotes??? It's 100% true and not snarky or anything. I'm confused.
Now I want more competitors for platforms like Heroku just so that they can put their prices down. Heroku is great, but it is crazy expensive. Furthermore, I don't see any signs of Heroku lowering their price at all.
Is Heroku really that expensive? I use their new $7/month instances and I have no complaints with performance and features. $50/month for a managed Postgres database is a bit expensive but other cloud storage options like Cloudant (use the service in same AWS region as Heroku) can be very reasonable.
I'm sorry but at $20/mo for basic SSL, you can easily spend $40/mo on Heroku for ONE app, almost $500/yr!
A private VPS with enough resources for 4 of those same apps would be 2-4X cheaper.
If your time is so valuable that you can waste money like that, congratulations, but many of us find halving a price and learning marketable skills in the process to be valuable.
Speaking as one of the Dokku maintainers, that is a false statement.
Security, true isolation, the ability to easily scale horizontally and vertically, integrations into many services are all things Heroku offers that you need to work hard for in Dokku. Disregarding the fact that you need to maintain your own server(s) with Dokku, Heroku is tthe clear winner here.
The only thing Dokku offers people is the ability to save some money at the cost of their own time. Sure, I can manage just fine as I was maintaining my own servers anyhow - and know how - but honestly I already have a dayjob, why would I want to make my programming hobby more work?
It's expensive if you need decent performance - Isolated Dynos (i.e. running in their own EC2 instance) start at $250/month. We found that the shared Dyno options had significant noisy-neighbour problems.
There are a lot of great services Azure offers and I would absolutely love to throw my money at Microsoft...but not all of it. I find it crazy that their SLA on VMs only applies if you have two VMs. Essentially, you are having to pay double just to maybe get 99.95% connectivity.
Like you I don't have any valid use case right now, but I'm interested in Service Fabric[1] though. It looks like Amazon Lambda, it screams vendor lock-in but much less than Lambda, as it seems easier to code and import dlls
Things are really going to pick up when interconnections between clouds becomes faster and easier. AWS's switch to VPC is actually moving this along nicely.
Many people actually want to be in two clouds for redundancy.
If your Windows host need Windows update, then all the Linux guests would need to be rebooted (but seems they've managed to reduce the number of reboot significantly since last year). But regarding the performance and security, most people using Linux still prefer a Linux VM host.
Wow, not really. If perf is fine who cares about the hypervisor. Regarding reboots, if they are using hyper-v they are probably on top ofServer Core which minimises patch surface and thus reboots.
I guess this is the new field in what they want to try to venture more into. I think the CEO was the former cloud head so no doubt its apart of his strategy
Azure is like 8 years old at this point, so it's by no means a new field for them. It's just that before there was no Google forcing everyone to cut their crazy fat margins.
Now if they could all lower network egress pricing I'd be really happy.