As a hobbyist, I pulled completely out of AWS when I realized the billing issues could never be resolved. Even/especially with tight monitoring and hard caps.

Even as a hobbyist, even as a most careful and judicious architect and admin, I could not prevent my VPS from incurring costs beyond my control. That means that the entire Internet, anyone with some kind of material access to the VPS, and especially any user or authorized entity, they could incur costs to me without bound and without notice until slapped with a bill.

Even something as simple as egress charges aren't under your control. So if people download enough data, you pay for all of it? It seems like an absurd proposition.

It's like opening a business somewhere in a war zone, and vandals and squatters are constantly attacking your storefront, and maybe you have a band of toughs as security and some good cops to defend awhile, but you're utterly in a war zone with adversaries acting far beyond your control.

As a hobbyist, I could never again justify running a pure VPS with the Linux and stack on top, as I ran before like the MediaWiki server. I was excited to learn all the vocabulary and skillsets of cloud services, but on the "free tier" uncapped, there was no telling when I'd be presented with costs beyond my ability to handle. And I do not see how a Fortune 500 would have any different calculus in this regard.

Most businesses in recent memory were "their own landlord" of on-prem equipment and machine rooms. Yeah, they began to outsource even their IT admin, but the machinery was in-house until the cloud services took over. Did we go through a phase of collective machine rooms or data centers with a collection of tenants? It seems we skipped from "homeownership" to "feudalism" with the Cloud Providers being the Princes [beyond mere Lords] who provide minimal resources to the serfs now. I can see many corporate execs who begin to hate "AI Data Centers" just for what they have become: a very attractive and irresistable way to reduce your capex and footprint and physical plant, by "migrating to the cloud" but is that really a better status quo after all your revenue is being pumped into AWS?

And in view of what I just wrote, a "hard budget cap" checkbox is even worse for you than runaway costs, because it will allow any determined adversary, butterfingered DevOps, or innocent fuckup, to shut you down and deny your service by hitting that cap. When a business experiences a service or infrastructure outage, they count that in dollars of revenue. Your "budget cap" will cost you money because it "paused your project" and your customers all got burned in turn.

Moving toward real solutions, just spitballing, but I can envision throttling and capping of everything, every billable service, monitored by the cloud provider and ensured that your services don't spill over into unmanageable territory. If your spend could be throttled and capped by-the-minute, by-the-hour, daily, then there is a start for it. But really, any service that incurs costs to you should have reasonable rate-limiting, throttling, caps and alerts that can help you manage it. I think all that stuff is currently missing but I am not a cloud admin, obviously. Cloud services obviously have perverse incentives to open the floodgates and bill as much as possible for any possibly legitimate usage that doesn't exceed their aggregate capacities. It's like LLMs today that just burn tokens like there's no tomorrow, because someone [you, not Mexico] will eventually pay for it all.

We're going to need default hard budget caps on pretty much everything