AWS North Virginia offers t4g.micro instances (AArch64 VMs with 1GB of RAM) for $0.0084 per hour, which works out as just under $74/year. [0] (Not counting data-store cost.) It's backed by highly reliable server-grade hardware, and is connected to the high-speed AWS network. Doesn't that count as cheap?
I agree that 'lower tier' providers may be even cheaper, but they still count as cloud computing, so I think my point stands. As a slight off-topic, I've found that the cheaper providers generally offer an inferior product. You can expect to encounter poorly considered features, broken features, or expected features missing entirely.
i'm mostly comparing to low-end on-prem hardware. $74 isn't a lot; but then, it's still much more expensive than something like a raspberry pi 4 with a USB SSD. also, the network isn't that relevant when going this low, since you won't be serving anything substantial out of it. you can get the price lower by using AWS features, but then it isn't 'just a VM' anymore.
IMHO getting into the cloud without using any cloud-native features isn't money well spent. you'll be much better off avoiding the VMs as much as possible - which is where your point about on-demand pricing makes sense for elastic workloads.
> i'm mostly comparing to low-end on-prem hardware
Running your own servers properly is a considerable undertaking. If you're just playing around, that's a different matter. Power-management equipment alone would cost more than what you'd spend on AWS. Even if you somehow got all your hardware for free, the time spent setting up would cost far more than AWS are asking.
> $74 isn't a lot; but then, it's still much more expensive than something like a raspberry pi 4 with a USB SSD
Serious cloud computing instances are backed by server-grade hardware, with automatic recovery systems to help cope with hardware failures if they do occur, in a dedicated facility with measures in place for everything from burglary to fire to power outages to network outages. The major cloud providers can offer all this for a few pounds/dollars a month due to economies of scale.
If it's your intent to just play around, a Raspberry Pi might be a fine choice, but a Raspberry Pi plugged into the wall isn't close to a proper server setup.
> the network isn't that relevant when going this low, since you won't be serving anything substantial out of it
Firstly, that's not necessarily true. If you're running something like an SFTP/FTPS server, you might make good use of the connection speed, despite only using a lightweight VM. Even if you're hosting a proper Web 2.0 site, an efficient architecture goes a long way. HackerNews and StackOverflow use famously few servers, for instance.
Secondly, a lot of ISPs are hostile to web hosting from home connections, so a Raspberry Pi might not be an option even if you're only hosting a 'toy' site.
Thirdly, it's not just performance, it's also reliability. AWS invest in redundancy and robustness. A home/small office connection isn't in the same league.
> getting into the cloud without using any cloud-native features isn't money well spent
If you can get a serious virtual/physical server for a better price elsewhere, that might be worth considering, sure. GitHub does this - they're hosted with a company called Carpathia, rather than with one of the major cloud providers. [0] The 'cloudy features' of a platform like EC2 are powerful though, features like automatic recovery from hardware failure, the ability to easily change the hardware spec of your instance with just a reboot of downtime, the ability to easily transform your virtual HDD into a virtual SSD, etc.
