i mentioned this as well in another comment to parent. Hopefully it catches on.
"Hey, SMB? you probably don't need our services. While AWS, GC, etc would be happy to take your money anyhow, [...]" I dunno. obviously any sort of thing like this has to clear all the departments because i imagine it increases support load.
No SMB is OK with us zapping their services because some screwed up deployment or stolen token exceeded a billing cap. You're not talking about SMBs, you're talking about people deploying random personal stuff. We love those people, we're happy to have them here, but we do not price the product specifically for them.
I get that this is a lot of venting about people's issues with cloud providers writ large, but damn.
i said SMB because SMB doesn't need cloud. if you have enough users to warrant cloud you're no longer S or M. I was actually going to start to concede that you might be right, maybe i should have said small-time users or something more eloquent; but no, i'll stand behind what i said. Dissuade all SMB and small users as much as possible. then there's 0% chance they get a surprise cloud bill. I solved the problem, yay.
as i mentioned elsewhere i'm intimately familiar with pretty much every intimate detail of "cloud" from hardware, software, network, cooling, and ops (i wouldn't call me a dev. I don't think anyone else would or should, either.) I've bootstrapped cloud services from empty racks twice and repurposed existing hardware for cloud once.
I understand why there's no "cap" available on any cloud services. I mostly have a problem with capitalism, which is ironic, considering this site.
"Hey, SMB? you probably don't need our services. While AWS, GC, etc would be happy to take your money anyhow, [...]" I dunno. obviously any sort of thing like this has to clear all the departments because i imagine it increases support load.