The Google Storage pricing of $0.026/GB (or $0.020/GB for reduced durability) made my jaw drop.
I spend over $6k/month on Amazon S3, and this pricing from Google has me flabbergasted. Our architecture just uses S3 as a pluggable commodity, so a few hours of coding is going to result in a new $4000/month in savings from this announcement. Wow!
Your prices are off by an order of magnitude (correct prices are $0.026/GB and $0.020/GB), and the latter is "Durable Reduced Availability" [1] not "Reduced Durability". It is availability, not durability, that is reduced.
In our case, the vast majority of the data is not ever served up and is removed via lifecycle rules. However, just the fact that we have the data serves a number of our customer's use cases.
That's a part that also stuck out to me. With that kind of price, "online" storage is approaching what was previously only available in Amazon Glacier "cold storage" pricing. When Glacier launched, it was about a 10x difference between online object stores ($0.10/GB) and Glacier ($0.01/GB). Since last year it's been down to a 7-8x difference, and now it's down all the way to a 2x difference. Imo, that makes the number of use-cases where it's worth dealing with Glacier's retrieval model smaller than previously (effectively only those where you have a truly huge amount of data, such that the remaining $0.01/GB price differential adds up to meaningful money).
I spend over $6k/month on Amazon S3, and this pricing from Google has me flabbergasted. Our architecture just uses S3 as a pluggable commodity, so a few hours of coding is going to result in a new $4000/month in savings from this announcement. Wow!
Edit: misplaced decimal!