It’s incredible that in 2026, AWS and GCP are only just now introducing this. It’s possibly one of the most obviously needed features for a cloud provider.
Also, does anyone know why it’s taken this long? I suspect it’s a technical reason. While one could be cynical, I doubt it’s an intentional business/product decision. Hard spending caps are both excellent product differentiators and could possibly save these providers money as they don’t have to forgive their users when they accidentally over-use a service.
It's one part technical, one part a product decision. The technical part is that billing is not actually instant. As a most basic example, a VM reports its billing units every X period of time it is active. If there is some network blip but it's still running, then that billing data could be delayed.
The product level decision is that "shut down everything" is something the customers you want to target don't actually want. Are we including deleting RDS data? S3? Glacier storage? If so then the headline will just change from "Hobbyist got charged XXXXXX on AWS" to "Business literally had all their data deleted because a hacker took over their VM and mined bitcoin". The only people who really want this are hobbyists and it's not a market segment that's worth chasing. Easier to do the status quo of forgive afterwards then even open the can of worms of deleting all of a business's data and all their backups just because they had a 100k overrun.
Yeah, you can't just implement it as a pure "stop all services immediately once I hit a set amount"
It needs to be more like "don't allow spinning up additional services after you hit this amount", although that still allows you to go over the limit by a lot, since most services are billed hourly.
It really is difficult to implement a spending cap that doesn't risk shutting down important things.
It really is difficult to implement a spending cap that doesn't risk shutting down important things.
That's a checkbox decision for the customer. There needs to be the option of "This is important, never turn it off and I'll pay for any overages." versus "I want an entirely predictable bill up to $xxx, so stop my stuff as soon as possible over that."
It's not up to a cloud service to decide my website is more important than my money for me. That's my decision to make.
and they would still complain if they got it wrong - it's always the platform/company's fault.
Look at banks and fraudulent transfers that customers themselves get phished into doing. The bank in the end usually take the hit (after the customer complains long enough). That's why there's all sorts of hoops and such to prevent customers from failing - and that causes friction for people regularly.
Therefore, the cloud company's decision to default safer is more correct from this perspective.
What surprised me about GCP was that yes, you could load all of your training data and model weights (terabytes) into a free starter account, then create a new account after 30 days and transfer the billing obligation from account A to account B.
It was such a blessing for hobbyists, back in ye olde 2019.
> The only people who really want this are hobbyists and it's not a market segment that's worth chasing. Easier to do the status quo of forgive afterwards then even open the can of worms of deleting all of a business's data and all their backups
Hit the nail on the head.
Nearly all businesses would prefer a cost overrun than services going offline.
and if they're going to be a good decision maker they need to put their personal feelings from hobbyist times aside and realize stuff is different in the two scenarios.
If your peak monthly cost for AWS services as a business is $100k, do you not think setting a $200k spending limit is reasonable?
Obviously, the system should provide ample time by warning in advance of reaching it (and could even offer suggestion to keep it at N times your peak from M months ago).
If as a business you set your spending limits so tight that you frequently run into them and it's not some unusual activity, the problem is not that spending limits are available :)
It is mostly about protecting from the unknown, likely unbounded attack on your infrastructure, where your spend might grow 100x: even if you can take $100k, you might not be able to take $10M in a month.
for personal/hobby accounts sure. for a business, it’s much better to negotiate around billing or adjust systems/processes post-facto than it is to have service cut off unexpectedly.
debts are easier to manage when you have an active (ideally growing) customer base. you don’t have customers anymore if your cloud account takes down your service for the rest of the month due to spending limits.
If you are actually a business, a common warning that you are near the limit should mostly resolve it. It might only be tricky because the estimated time remaining is really short if it's a huge recent spike: eg. nobody is looking forward to a notice of "you'll use up your spending limit in 4h" on the weekend.
This type of warning should give you enough time to investigate if the warning is real and adjust the spending limits.
But then again, even if you hit them and your services get paused, you'd be increasing the spending limits and restoring services after you are back at work and notice they are down, so it mostly comes down to your incident response times.
I think there is a middle ground between deleting data and allowing 5000 VMs to be created to mine bitcoin. Obviously there are a lot of different scenarios to consider but the explosive costs seem to be constrained mostly to a couple of features which would be fairly safe to cap.
> Are we including deleting RDS data? S3? Glacier storage?
If you're billing per GB of storage, then you can put hard caps on storage capacity, and then hard-reject any operation that would take the total stored size over that capacity.
For S3 a reasonable option is a data limit as the primary limit. If you set it a TB over your real needs you only waste one dollar per day after it locks. And there's no need for any other paused service to charge more than that for idle data.
You're right that nobody wants deletion. Spending limits do not imply deletion.
I think a more sensible default is S3/etc locking access to data for 30 days, maybe even as little as 7 days, while you're able to still list and DELETE said data as you wish, without being able to get or put.
A very charitable take, in light of tech industry habits of exorbitant rent-seeking in scenarios of Platform Dominance (e.g. Google and Apple on the app store). We should remember AWS and Google companies are among the best in the world at A/B testing and extracting revenue from cloud services.
When you're one of only two real options out there, you can afford to demand users put up with things that on their surface seem ridiculous. Such as a billing system that (oops!) makes it difficult for customers to see where their costs are coming from, trim their largest sources of spend, notice meaningful changes in line item prices, or limit their spend. Wild how they can figure out a million different advanced services but gosh-darn-it can't figure out the hardtech of displaying line items.
Large enterprises can afford employees who are tasked full time with unwinding this capacity to mitigate the impact of these billing headaches. But I think this measure is introduced now because LLMs introduced a risk that these billing specialists could not control without caps.
I had a $.20/month recurring charge from AWS that I could only remove¹ by completely deleting my AWS account. That was enough to get me to give up on AWS for personal projects.
⸻
1. The key word was “I.” Maybe someone more skilled at navigating AWS’s menu structure than I could would have done it quickly and easily, but even though I knew what it was for, turning it off and not getting billed for it turned out to be a huge challenge. Thankfully it was only $.20, but if I were using the service for something that generated actual bills, that $.20 (and possibly more) would end up quietly siphoning money out of my pocket into Amazon’s).
It's possible to get billed for things not exposed in the UI. ~10 years ago, I had one of these. A Glacier upload chunk was stuck in a staging area for over a month. I couldn't complete or cancel the upload, or remove the chunk. Support was able to, and they refunded the money without much hassle. But I did have to reach out to support (as a <$100 per month customer) to ask. Glacier was new, so I chalk it up to it being a new product, not anything greedy or malicious.
Sounds familiar. I’m being billed £0.01/month for something in GCP, I don’t know what even after digging, but I’m too fearful to complain about it or disable the account lest it somehow gets my main Gmail account blacklisted somehow.
Remember when they decided the best UI experience was to give everything a vague abstract collection of shapes? Early 2010s or so. Couldn't tell a damn thing apart.
It's definitely technically difficult. You can't easily estimate how much an operation is going to cost before you kick off that operation, which means as soon as you get close to the limit you are at risk of tripping it.
Consider something like a "select * from bigtable" SQL query that might process a trillion rows. Hard to know that's going to cost $100 until after you have run it.
> You can't easily estimate how much an operation is going to cost before you kick off that operation
I recently had a debate with a colleague on this topic but concerning estimating the costs of AI agent work. For example, if you prompt an AI to refactor your codebase, the final cost can't be estimated perfectly, but I'm sure it can at least be estimated with some amount of precision! Like simply knowing that it will cost < $100 is actually great information even if the final work only ends up costing $5.
I think there actually might be a business opportunity (or at least the opportunity to build something cool here) if anyone wants to work in the AI cost estimation space. It's not exactly an idea I want to pursue, but just thought I'd put it out there. AI cost estimation (even with wide confidence bands) would be very useful to a lot of people.
In this example, that would require the “big query” to have billing baked into its actual query runtime, which isn’t impossible, just not how one would design a query planner per se. Usually such services emit metrics of usage units, then the billing calculation happens in a completely different system taking into account discounts, promotions, contracts, regional and currency differences, etc.
Suddenly a database, a storage service or a computer service needs to be aware of the billing situations and make behavioral decisions based on the billing status. Again, not impossible, but something that suddenly promotes billing from an async/non-crucial background service that can be paused, replayed, adjusted by account teams etc, into a crucial hot-path service.
Stop everything is pretty damaging any real business though. Things were better in the era of VPSs. You paid for a fixed amount of compute, if you ran a stupidly expensive operation than it just maxed out your system for a certain amount of time and things slowed down. But you didn’t kill the service entirely and you didn’t have unlimited potential price
Yes and then the choice is run it and forgive it, or, stop the process midway.
If you stop then you have to decide whether to charge for uncompleted work.
Interesting tradeoffs.
For very small ops e.g. individual Lambda invocation you have similar concerns especially if lots are fired at once from a queue or schedule or fanout.
Because most enterprise users would much rather have overages in billing than outages. The opportunity costs on any serious service I deploy dwarfs usage pricing, at least at the level a generic cloud can determine.
So it’s a feature the best customers don’t want, that adds risk to those customers deployments, to appease the worst customers.
At least historically. Perhaps Simon is right that the calculation has changed.
It’s not a binary decision though. Any sensible enterprise has many AWS accounts. Often hundreds or thousands. It’s the only clear separation of privilege.
There’s no reason for the majority of them to have an infinite budget cap. Prod? Sure. UAT? Why not. The sandbox environment Johnny just spun up to test some new agentic workflow? Hell no.
If these cloud providers had needed a standard customer acquisition strategy to grow to their current size, hard caps and other “training wheels” features would already be in place to get people interested in and comfortable using the platform, with the hope of eventually getting a foothold into Enterprise like most SaaS startups have to do (“enjoy our product on a side project and then recommend us to your CTO!”). But AWS and GCP got to start as in-house providers for their own constellations of massive sites and back out from that to serving other hyper scale businesses first. The lack of friendly on-ramps and starter account features is a reflection of that origin more than anything.
This is one of those features that customers think they want without having thought it through:
“Never let me spend more than $X” also means, “Shut down my business-critical app/service/solution at 2 am on a Sunday morning because Joel in IT forgot to plan for the new report runs.”
The product design work to let customers have the first thing without risk of major pain from the second thing is non-trivial.
Counter argument, this is the sort of thing that, especially for a smaller business or individual, can be the difference between a bad night and bankruptcy.
Sure it sucks that critical services blinked out at 2am. But what sucks even more is finding out the image on my ASG had a vulnerability that allowed someone to install a bunch of bitcoin miners which kept me fully scaled from midnight to 2am.
Or more likely, that a mistake in terraform 1000xed my spending.
Most people have predictable spending and could easily say "don't spend more than 10x what I normally spend". Or 1.5x, or 2x, 3x, etc. All depending on how they want to balance a runaway cloud expense.
For a large enterprise spending millions on AWS, 1.5X is already a budgetary disaster. Unfortunately, shutting off critical IT infra because it hit 1.4X spend this month is a business disaster.
There’s no magic wand that produces good outcomes when planning or execution goes awry at scale.
> especially for a smaller business or individual, can be the difference between a bad night and bankruptcy.
Just because this isn't a good solution for everyone, doesn't mean it's not a good solution for a large number of people and businesses.
A lot of businesses can tolerate outages. In fact, even very big businesses come out mostly unscathed when they have multi-hour outages. (how many is it for github this year?)
An outage causes a reputational black eye. It does not necessarily translate to lost income.
The alternate conversation is "the new report run had a bug and cost us $1,000,000 over the weekend" and I think that one's usually worse.
But one could just have two categories of service - the default capped plan, and a special Enterprise one where you sign a contract making it clear you understand the consequences of not having a budget limit.
Also, if your average usage is $900, set your hard limit at $2,000, not $1,000. Then when the report runs $500 over expected, you get a soft limit email and still have your report. Even a "business critical" run is probably not actually worth more than double your average spend.
This is the right perspective, but the folks who would be setting this cap for the customers that matter likely have no idea how to price that, or the price would be so absurd as to make the cap meaningless.
How much would a hospital pay to avoid unexpected downtime of their software systems?
I would think once you reach the scale that this becomes an issue you can afford someone or a team to be monitoring the system 24/7 able to respond to a price spike.
Price caps are for small scale stuff where you wake up on Monday and see 1000x the normal bill.
I imagine that the product folks at places like AWS are averse to introducing discontinuities in the experience based on scale. Little customers get the same experience as big customers who get the same experience as mega customers.
Obviously they’ve changed their mind about cost management in light of the scale and dynamism of agents, which isn’t too surprising.
A hospital needs to be able to handle a full cloud outage. So I'd be worried if they're near the top of the list of how much they'd be willing to pay here.
Sure, but prior to AWS introducing a notion of “project”, then they’d be at risk for those $1M bills from the data science team looking for agentic magic to reduce readmissions.
My point is this was never as simple as, “Give me a dial to set my maximum account spend.”
Big companies have thousands of budgets. An email is _worthless_. In fact, it would probably cause me to lose faith in a cloud that provided that as the control.
It is a technical reason. Basically cloud billing is much more granular and across many more services / line items than most things that basically the pipelines that figure out how much you have spent take a long time to know how much you have consumed. I believe all cloud providers with granular usage based billing have this problem.
> It’s incredible that in 2026, AWS and GCP are only just now introducing this. It’s possibly one of the most obviously needed features for a cloud provider.
GCP did have a budget cap previously. I think the new one is just more fine-grained to apply to specific services.
There is a huge difference between "stop accruing new spend" and "nuke everything".
The horror stories I have seen are of the type: some big artifact was getting pulled in a loop, causing TBs of network traffic or access keys were leaked and malware spun up 1000 xxxlarge instances.
The ability to stop the bleeding is the bare minimum people want. Not, "Well, you made a boo-boo so now you lost everything."
Edit: Ugh it's fake. Literally only works for four random services, unsupported for all the rest. Completely useless for all of my projects. Also dumb that the only supported term is "monthly" considering that months are different lengths, and that they don't bother to account for credits or discounts. Maybe next decade they'll get around to implementing something useful.
I used to work on a support team of a well known backend type service that had hard budget caps.
It was, unfortunately, a nightmare. There were tons of tickets and even threats of lawsuits from customers whose service got cut off hard at the worst possible time due to organic growth/going viral/big event/nobody knew about the limit/etc. Not only did they lose all the leads and revenue they would have gotten from that bump, but they also pissed off their own existing users who suddenly couldn't use the service either.
Generally speaking, it's much better to use alerts instead of hard limit. Even in the worst case (hackers pwn your credentials and mine Bitcoin or whatever) the rest of your business is unaffected and you can negotiate with the billing department at comparative leisure.
This is all assuming you have humans operating the service. If you're letting AI agents yolo infra in prod, you have a whole series of new problems.
Yes, this is an important point although it has changed with A.I. Software is traditionally very high margin and so a $10k bill can be written off by the provider without any meaningful loss.
As a customer, the big number is scary and causes panic but for the provider… customers constantly fail to pay bills, providers are constantly writing off bills because it just isn’t worth the cost to chase, if a customer says “hey that usage was a mistake” it’s usually worth it to write it off to save the relationship. If you write off a big bill that wouldn’t have been paid anyway, the customer will perceive you as wonderful and benevolent and be loyal for life when they are ready to spend their money.
With tokens though the actual cost being incurred is much, much higher. If your service is just a wrapper around tokens, and a customer incurs $10k of usage that you paid OpenAI $5k for, it becomes much more difficult to write off.
Google Cloud is one of the few services that actually pursues unpaid bills even on their high margin services.
Google Cloud is also the scariest because of how much damage it can do and how bad their payment system can be.
I recently loaded up on prepaid api credits for gemini and it somehow triggered some billing shenanigans in my linked accounts where it said I had a negative balance (from the credits), and they were going to discontinue my services. I had to reset some settings to sort it out, mainly using their chat ai and mine (because theirs gave me right status info, but wrong conclusions).
It's pretty messy across like aistudio.google.com, and their typical console, and google workspace business account. I'd be so fucked if they froze my account, I'd rather just pay openrouter to access credits in the future.
That doesn't mean you couldn't have a service which by default has no hard cap, and people have to opt into it. You could even put a user interface thing where people have to type a whole sentence perfectly matching and hit OK, like "I understand that enabling a hard billing cap will shut off services if it exceeds my monthly quota". Wrap it in as much service agreement contract, TOS language as is necessary.
Heck, have it do the equivalent of send people a DocuSign equivalent PDF to sign acknowledging the risk before enabling it. Would it still stop pissed off people? Probably not. Would it help with the risk of lawsuits, very possibly.
I think it's not generally 'much better' to use alerts. People - end users - are by now quite used to seeing things go down for a while. No biggie. But a infra oopsie can kill a company in ways a short outage won't.
And its of course not just people yolo'ing with AI. People were quite capable of causing such outages themselves just fine. Distributed, serverless systems are hard.
> you can negotiate with the billing department at comparative leisure.
I'm curious. How likely is the billing department to waive off a huge bill as bad debt because an inexperienced builder misconfigured their infra or was hacked?
Not the OP but run a high margin service that has customers run up accidental bills often. Customers running up bills intentionally and then not paying is even more common. There is almost no situation where trying to force a customer to pay makes sense, we write off any amount without question. The goodwill is worth it every time. Most SaaS companies don’t even have the processes in place for debt collection anyway.
I mean, I understand why _you_ want it that way, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be hard budget caps for other people. You could even have both, with alerts at a level lower than the cap. I just want some kind of control over it.
This goes beyond dollar charges. For production code to be reliable, everything needs to have a hard limit.
Queue lengths, request sizes, response wait duration, message payload size, authentication attempts, allocation rates -- there's always some upper number beyond which the system is so messed up you'd rather it crashes.
> An argument against this is that businesses don’t want their hosted applications to start throwing errors because some budget was exceeded. I expect that most businesses and individuals would prefer errors to a surprise $10,000+ bill.
Indeed. If you want a surprise $10,000 bill that's still not an argument against a hard cap -- just set it at $9,999,999 instead, or wherever you don't want the surprise bill. There's always a number that indicates something has gone insane. There's always a sensible upper limit to any operation.
I am a little bit surprised by the lack of depth in discussing such a major product change.
I get it, the problem is definitely worth solving for. Waking up with a $100k bill isn’t great.
At the same time, from a product perspective the proposed solution might be a bad idea. Simply having hard caps as default will definitely turn out to be as bad for some people as a 100k bill, see for example (1).
Then add the option, but make it default to soft caps. Or bake the default into the tiers. If I sub with a $20 spending limit, I will probably be ruined by a $2000 bill. On the other hand, if a company subs with a $1000 limit, it can probably cover the occasional $10000.
At the very least, there should be an optional hard limit that is obviously indicated in the UI. When you're signing up where you set your "usage cap" warning, next to it should be an optional hard cap with big bold red letters "THIS WILL CUT YOU OFF THE MOMENT YOU GO ONE CENT OVER". So I can set e.g. a warning at $20 and a hard cap of $100.
These shouldn't even exist without a negotiated contract.
I can subscribe to your service for a specific fee on a monthly basis ($20/month say), and take the risk of losing that month's fee if your service or I make mistakes, or I can choose to drop another $20 mid-month, or anything for convenience.
Saying that the computer will "control" the billing and can run haywire tells me that I don't want to be anywhere near your pile of bad incentives.
Monthly electricity bills are based on usage, and it works well but there’s a limit to how surprising a bill can be. The difference is the relative orders of magnitude you can be charged for these services you can go from 20$/month to 200k/month without warning.
Network saturation is difficult. Even if you turn off the endpoint you can still saturate the network in between. And it's still bandwidth.
I actually think network ACL triggers based on billing might be the only way to really enforce this.
I witnessed a DDoS attack once that changed how I think about billing. It was locally provisioned hardware and the attackers had saturated the switches. Naively I said "just block the CIDRs" but the problem was the incoming ram is so saturated that it can't even get to the point of "deny" in the firmware.
So from a technical perspective if there's an internal DDoS at AWS what do you do? Do you turn off the endpoint? Do you drop the sources from hitting it at the router? And even that costs money. Anyway that incident gave me a different level of appreciation for this challenge.
Edit: this is mainly targeted at the people complaining why this took so long. At some point in scaling even telling you "no sorry" in a nice way is expensive. I'm sure recruiters can sympathize with this nowdays.
This is something payment providers and banks should be offering. Otherwise you’re hoping each of N sellers will spend engineering money to individually implement a feature that realistically reduces their potential profit, on the vague promise that it’s some kind of beneficial feature that will bring them profit, which is never going to work like you hope.
Hard caps are rare because companies find it more profitable to forgive sympathetic individuals' bills while raking in profits from corporations whose services have gone awry
Having a monthly summary or estimate of how your spending is going would be really useful, too.
Even if we have a negotiated yearly contract for $X spend per year, maybe we’ll hit that spend in 6 months instead of 12. Having some kind of automated telemetry saying how we’re trending would be so useful.
I’ve gotten vague warnings from customer success people saying vaguely that, but without any warning of what’s truly happening. The more we abstract away from money (tokens, credits, etc), the more we need a way to translate right back to money, to see how close we’re getting to any limits over time.
I don’t want to find out in month 5 that the contract which was expected to cover a year is now going to run out in 14 days.
I know AWS and similar sites have no such concepts, but other than those, this is an existing option of most kinds of service providers.
Realistically, most providers can't even allow you to consume $10k usage if they don't have the certainty that you can pay up. Prepaid is what gives them that certainty.
I thought Microsoft used to give student's some free Azure credits - say $200. Rumor is, Microsoft was very good at pulling the plug the instant you went over that billing limit.
My org has a leaderboard for AI spending each month, and I have found it interesting how fast the distribution decays, just within the top 10 users. I often think “what did these people do with all those tokens?” It’s interesting to think the answer to that question is “maybe not a lot?”
Right? If spending the most is lauded, why wouldn't I use the most expensive model, automate things that don't need automating, build things I don't need to build etc just to jack the spend up?
I work at a place that has an eight figure monthly AWS bill. They won’t use this.
I had a personal development account for ~15 years. I tinker with infrastructure stuff and had built some centralized event reporting. One day about two years later I turned on sqs data events into cloudtrail. What I didn’t realize was that this closed a feedback loop and over the next couple of hours my run rate went to about $4k per day in cloudtrail+sqs usage.
I didn’t realize it until I hit the next months billing alarm immediately the next month. I’d racked up $25k in usage fees.
I’ll be using this feature. Nothing I run is worth that risk.
> In an ideal world, our agents could help with this.
Not exactly the sort of case Simon has in mind, but I tell Claude to keep to hard daily limits on its OpenRouter spending for two long-running projects [1, 2].
A Routine for each project fires ever few hours, and Claude decides itself what to do in each session. It does tasks that require calls to other models through OpenRouter only when it is still within its daily budget for that project; after it reaches that cap, it does other tasks that don’t require extra spending.
I learned this the hard way with OpenAI last week. A key got hacked and a Chinese-language bot used $300 in tokens in an hour.
I had a spending limit on for $30, so why did it keep charging? Because the spending limit is meaningless without a hidden checkbox called “enforce spending limit,” which is (or at least was for me) off by default.
We always did, the clouds convinced us that overages were the norm. You can blame credit ratings as another vector for big business to screw everyone over. Everything should have been pay in advance with an alternate billing method for overages if you want it.
I had an api key set to read only that somehow ran up a $400 bill, I contacted openai about it and never heard back. Not quite the same thing, but still, I find this very annoying.
This is nothing new. This has been defacto standard for companies using cloud, which has burst or semi-predictable spikes in usage.
But the idiocy is incredible, even allowing for this to be happen in a business is so infantile that the only hard cap that should be important is not to allow stupid people in the machine room.
Ubicloud does not have hard budget caps, which I only realized this morning after moving all my CI over to them over the past few months. Fortunately I didn't learn the hard way.
It'd be nice if more than AI spend worked this way, autoscaling is almost a mixed blessing because unpredictable pricing can be worse than the cost savings...
I understand this is snark, but if you think about it, this is already implemented in electrical infrastructure. If I use too much power, the circuit breaker trips to protect me and protect the electrical grid. OP is about a billing breaker, but the parallels should be obvious.
If the CEO of the electric company didn't mandate circuit breakers, he should go to jail.
The peak throughput does result in an overall monthly limit though. For a house with a 200A main breaker, that effectively limits your electric bill to $7,000/month, which is very reasonable compared to the tens of thousands of dollars in a single day that a lot of cloud billing disasters end up costing.
Why do people think new laws are needed to solve every last problem in the world?
Google implemented caps because their competitors offered them. Before that, customers could choose one of several competitors, rent the GPUs at a fixed rate, or buy the GPUs and install them on-premises.
At no point was any law needed to solve any of this.
Counterpoint: if you can automate API calls on the client side, why can't you automate billing caps? If you want a machine that can run 24-7 and make money for you while you sleep (which let's face it is the motivation for a lot of AI takeup), isn't the onus on you to install cicuit-breakers?
Because many cloud services have incredibly complex or opaque pricing structures that make it difficult to impossible to determine how much something is going to cost you ahead of time, especially if it's usage-based a la network egress (and the usage statistics don't update frequently enough to make such circuit breakers possible to implement client-side).
They might not be able to predict your bill but how much time do they need to add up what you already spent to minimize your overage? And TBH how much time should be acceptable to exceed your cap before it's their fault for the lag in their software.
I would just not sign up for a service without price transparency, or pre-calculate my liability based on available information before pushing the (metaphorical) Deliver Now button.
Making incredibly complex and opaque pricing structures is not necessary for the providers to charge for and make a profit on their service. And being technically difficult is a lazy excuse. Cloud platforms have to solve many, much more difficult challenges to offer their services at all, they just don’t want to invest the time in more customer friendly billing because they expect it will result in reduced revenues.
I know your post isn’t explicitly defending the platforms, but the arguments they use feel transparently flimsy.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm making excuses for cloud providers. I'm just stating the way things are, not the way I think they should be.
Yes and no. I suspect many of the hard limits were set arbitrarily, and we'll see a relaxation of limits as people get frustrated with the limited use they get out of them. And some services will genuinely need to be re written to support higher rps or risk losing customers
This is another reason why cryptocurrency wins. Hard limits are baked in. There is no automatic charge like with a credit card or debit card or bank account. The payer has to initiate the payment.
I'd support this provided we have the converse as well: if the customer doesn't pay their bill on time, the service gets shut down immediately. (Disclosure: I sell SaaS services to people who don't pay their bills on time).
The solution is to not give agents access to MCP servers.
The entire MCP ecosystem is ludicrous. You’re paying for inference for an agent to make the same decisions over and over again, and yet the actions they’re taking can be so easily written by those same agents into a bash script you can run again and again, deterministically and for free.
MCP is the problem. Having agents “use a product on your behalf” is the problem.
The pattern you’re looking for is that agents should write scripts that use products for us, and that doesn’t need a new protocol.
AWS, is a loot box... Tokens are just in game currency, and that sales person is just metrics that have identified your spending as making you a whale.
Your average CTO from the last decade turned a fixed cost into variable spending that looks like a mobile game.
Because it’s unlikely they’ll actually be able to collect that million dollars from a lot of those customers. Rephrased: why would your vendor want to make it harder to accidentally give you a million dollars of services in exchange for debt of dubious quality?
One of the biggest benefits of not engaging with LLMs or any of this nonsense is you dont have to care about all these "self made" problems of the LLM-gliteratti.
the premise seems a bit faulty to me. why should we be giving next token predictors access to spend our money? like what great benefit do we get from this that we should allow them unfettered access, but with safeguards in the form of hard budget caps?
I don't think Simon means you should hand off the spending to agents/LLM (which would also make me uneasy) but that if you're probing one for hosting/SaaS providers they should default to recommending ones with budget caps
This is about budget caps (“I don’t want to spend more than $100, cut me off once I spend that much”) not price caps (“no one is allowed to charge more than this price per token”).
Also, does anyone know why it’s taken this long? I suspect it’s a technical reason. While one could be cynical, I doubt it’s an intentional business/product decision. Hard spending caps are both excellent product differentiators and could possibly save these providers money as they don’t have to forgive their users when they accidentally over-use a service.
The product level decision is that "shut down everything" is something the customers you want to target don't actually want. Are we including deleting RDS data? S3? Glacier storage? If so then the headline will just change from "Hobbyist got charged XXXXXX on AWS" to "Business literally had all their data deleted because a hacker took over their VM and mined bitcoin". The only people who really want this are hobbyists and it's not a market segment that's worth chasing. Easier to do the status quo of forgive afterwards then even open the can of worms of deleting all of a business's data and all their backups just because they had a 100k overrun.
It needs to be more like "don't allow spinning up additional services after you hit this amount", although that still allows you to go over the limit by a lot, since most services are billed hourly.
It really is difficult to implement a spending cap that doesn't risk shutting down important things.
That's a checkbox decision for the customer. There needs to be the option of "This is important, never turn it off and I'll pay for any overages." versus "I want an entirely predictable bill up to $xxx, so stop my stuff as soon as possible over that."
It's not up to a cloud service to decide my website is more important than my money for me. That's my decision to make.
and they would still complain if they got it wrong - it's always the platform/company's fault.
Look at banks and fraudulent transfers that customers themselves get phished into doing. The bank in the end usually take the hit (after the customer complains long enough). That's why there's all sorts of hoops and such to prevent customers from failing - and that causes friction for people regularly.
Therefore, the cloud company's decision to default safer is more correct from this perspective.
> If you take no action within 90 days of your project being paused, AWS permanently deletes your project data.
From https://docs.aws.amazon.com/accounts/latest/reference/create...
They'll ban you after a year because it will be against their TOS.
But sure, go for it.
It was such a blessing for hobbyists, back in ye olde 2019.
Hit the nail on the head.
Nearly all businesses would prefer a cost overrun than services going offline.
Some were replaced with a competing service which has a limit, others replaced by a self-hosted alternative.
I think many small businesses would prefer to be offline or have a degraded service than pay $X000.
Obviously, the system should provide ample time by warning in advance of reaching it (and could even offer suggestion to keep it at N times your peak from M months ago).
If as a business you set your spending limits so tight that you frequently run into them and it's not some unusual activity, the problem is not that spending limits are available :)
It is mostly about protecting from the unknown, likely unbounded attack on your infrastructure, where your spend might grow 100x: even if you can take $100k, you might not be able to take $10M in a month.
for personal/hobby accounts sure. for a business, it’s much better to negotiate around billing or adjust systems/processes post-facto than it is to have service cut off unexpectedly.
debts are easier to manage when you have an active (ideally growing) customer base. you don’t have customers anymore if your cloud account takes down your service for the rest of the month due to spending limits.
This type of warning should give you enough time to investigate if the warning is real and adjust the spending limits.
But then again, even if you hit them and your services get paused, you'd be increasing the spending limits and restoring services after you are back at work and notice they are down, so it mostly comes down to your incident response times.
If you're billing per GB of storage, then you can put hard caps on storage capacity, and then hard-reject any operation that would take the total stored size over that capacity.
You're right that nobody wants deletion. Spending limits do not imply deletion.
When you're one of only two real options out there, you can afford to demand users put up with things that on their surface seem ridiculous. Such as a billing system that (oops!) makes it difficult for customers to see where their costs are coming from, trim their largest sources of spend, notice meaningful changes in line item prices, or limit their spend. Wild how they can figure out a million different advanced services but gosh-darn-it can't figure out the hardtech of displaying line items.
Large enterprises can afford employees who are tasked full time with unwinding this capacity to mitigate the impact of these billing headaches. But I think this measure is introduced now because LLMs introduced a risk that these billing specialists could not control without caps.
⸻
1. The key word was “I.” Maybe someone more skilled at navigating AWS’s menu structure than I could would have done it quickly and easily, but even though I knew what it was for, turning it off and not getting billed for it turned out to be a huge challenge. Thankfully it was only $.20, but if I were using the service for something that generated actual bills, that $.20 (and possibly more) would end up quietly siphoning money out of my pocket into Amazon’s).
Starting from the login point, who asks to login to root or IAM user account in 2026?
Or having to change regions from a dropdown to see resources you own in those regions?
It's really in top 5 messy UI i have ever seen.
Remember when they decided the best UI experience was to give everything a vague abstract collection of shapes? Early 2010s or so. Couldn't tell a damn thing apart.
Consider something like a "select * from bigtable" SQL query that might process a trillion rows. Hard to know that's going to cost $100 until after you have run it.
I recently had a debate with a colleague on this topic but concerning estimating the costs of AI agent work. For example, if you prompt an AI to refactor your codebase, the final cost can't be estimated perfectly, but I'm sure it can at least be estimated with some amount of precision! Like simply knowing that it will cost < $100 is actually great information even if the final work only ends up costing $5.
I think there actually might be a business opportunity (or at least the opportunity to build something cool here) if anyone wants to work in the AI cost estimation space. It's not exactly an idea I want to pursue, but just thought I'd put it out there. AI cost estimation (even with wide confidence bands) would be very useful to a lot of people.
Green means go Orange means finish what you're doing but don't start anything new Red means stop everything
And probably a special rule to permit stable, critical spend through regardless, the same way we allow police and ambulance to run lights.
Suddenly a database, a storage service or a computer service needs to be aware of the billing situations and make behavioral decisions based on the billing status. Again, not impossible, but something that suddenly promotes billing from an async/non-crucial background service that can be paused, replayed, adjusted by account teams etc, into a crucial hot-path service.
If you stop then you have to decide whether to charge for uncompleted work.
Interesting tradeoffs.
For very small ops e.g. individual Lambda invocation you have similar concerns especially if lots are fired at once from a queue or schedule or fanout.
So it’s a feature the best customers don’t want, that adds risk to those customers deployments, to appease the worst customers.
At least historically. Perhaps Simon is right that the calculation has changed.
There’s no reason for the majority of them to have an infinite budget cap. Prod? Sure. UAT? Why not. The sandbox environment Johnny just spun up to test some new agentic workflow? Hell no.
“Never let me spend more than $X” also means, “Shut down my business-critical app/service/solution at 2 am on a Sunday morning because Joel in IT forgot to plan for the new report runs.”
The product design work to let customers have the first thing without risk of major pain from the second thing is non-trivial.
Sure it sucks that critical services blinked out at 2am. But what sucks even more is finding out the image on my ASG had a vulnerability that allowed someone to install a bunch of bitcoin miners which kept me fully scaled from midnight to 2am.
Or more likely, that a mistake in terraform 1000xed my spending.
Most people have predictable spending and could easily say "don't spend more than 10x what I normally spend". Or 1.5x, or 2x, 3x, etc. All depending on how they want to balance a runaway cloud expense.
There’s no magic wand that produces good outcomes when planning or execution goes awry at scale.
Just because this isn't a good solution for everyone, doesn't mean it's not a good solution for a large number of people and businesses.
A lot of businesses can tolerate outages. In fact, even very big businesses come out mostly unscathed when they have multi-hour outages. (how many is it for github this year?)
An outage causes a reputational black eye. It does not necessarily translate to lost income.
But one could just have two categories of service - the default capped plan, and a special Enterprise one where you sign a contract making it clear you understand the consequences of not having a budget limit.
Also, if your average usage is $900, set your hard limit at $2,000, not $1,000. Then when the report runs $500 over expected, you get a soft limit email and still have your report. Even a "business critical" run is probably not actually worth more than double your average spend.
The price cap should be the number you’d be willing to spend to avoid an outage vs when you’d rather kill everything and work out what happened.
How much would a hospital pay to avoid unexpected downtime of their software systems?
Price caps are for small scale stuff where you wake up on Monday and see 1000x the normal bill.
Obviously they’ve changed their mind about cost management in light of the scale and dynamism of agents, which isn’t too surprising.
My point is this was never as simple as, “Give me a dial to set my maximum account spend.”
Sending an email when your budget gets low shouldn't be a big lift.
GCP did have a budget cap previously. I think the new one is just more fine-grained to apply to specific services.
"Sorry, you had a hard cap on AWS spend so we deleted all your S3 data on August 27th". Yeah not going to fly.
The horror stories I have seen are of the type: some big artifact was getting pulled in a loop, causing TBs of network traffic or access keys were leaked and malware spun up 1000 xxxlarge instances.
The ability to stop the bleeding is the bare minimum people want. Not, "Well, you made a boo-boo so now you lost everything."
https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/cost-management/new-ear...
Edit: Ugh it's fake. Literally only works for four random services, unsupported for all the rest. Completely useless for all of my projects. Also dumb that the only supported term is "monthly" considering that months are different lengths, and that they don't bother to account for credits or discounts. Maybe next decade they'll get around to implementing something useful.
Edit: sadface
It was, unfortunately, a nightmare. There were tons of tickets and even threats of lawsuits from customers whose service got cut off hard at the worst possible time due to organic growth/going viral/big event/nobody knew about the limit/etc. Not only did they lose all the leads and revenue they would have gotten from that bump, but they also pissed off their own existing users who suddenly couldn't use the service either.
Generally speaking, it's much better to use alerts instead of hard limit. Even in the worst case (hackers pwn your credentials and mine Bitcoin or whatever) the rest of your business is unaffected and you can negotiate with the billing department at comparative leisure.
This is all assuming you have humans operating the service. If you're letting AI agents yolo infra in prod, you have a whole series of new problems.
As a customer, the big number is scary and causes panic but for the provider… customers constantly fail to pay bills, providers are constantly writing off bills because it just isn’t worth the cost to chase, if a customer says “hey that usage was a mistake” it’s usually worth it to write it off to save the relationship. If you write off a big bill that wouldn’t have been paid anyway, the customer will perceive you as wonderful and benevolent and be loyal for life when they are ready to spend their money.
With tokens though the actual cost being incurred is much, much higher. If your service is just a wrapper around tokens, and a customer incurs $10k of usage that you paid OpenAI $5k for, it becomes much more difficult to write off.
Google Cloud is one of the few services that actually pursues unpaid bills even on their high margin services.
I recently loaded up on prepaid api credits for gemini and it somehow triggered some billing shenanigans in my linked accounts where it said I had a negative balance (from the credits), and they were going to discontinue my services. I had to reset some settings to sort it out, mainly using their chat ai and mine (because theirs gave me right status info, but wrong conclusions).
It's pretty messy across like aistudio.google.com, and their typical console, and google workspace business account. I'd be so fucked if they froze my account, I'd rather just pay openrouter to access credits in the future.
Heck, have it do the equivalent of send people a DocuSign equivalent PDF to sign acknowledging the risk before enabling it. Would it still stop pissed off people? Probably not. Would it help with the risk of lawsuits, very possibly.
And its of course not just people yolo'ing with AI. People were quite capable of causing such outages themselves just fine. Distributed, serverless systems are hard.
I'm curious. How likely is the billing department to waive off a huge bill as bad debt because an inexperienced builder misconfigured their infra or was hacked?
Queue lengths, request sizes, response wait duration, message payload size, authentication attempts, allocation rates -- there's always some upper number beyond which the system is so messed up you'd rather it crashes.
> An argument against this is that businesses don’t want their hosted applications to start throwing errors because some budget was exceeded. I expect that most businesses and individuals would prefer errors to a surprise $10,000+ bill.
Indeed. If you want a surprise $10,000 bill that's still not an argument against a hard cap -- just set it at $9,999,999 instead, or wherever you don't want the surprise bill. There's always a number that indicates something has gone insane. There's always a sensible upper limit to any operation.
I get it, the problem is definitely worth solving for. Waking up with a $100k bill isn’t great.
At the same time, from a product perspective the proposed solution might be a bad idea. Simply having hard caps as default will definitely turn out to be as bad for some people as a 100k bill, see for example (1).
(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49950196
At the very least, there should be an optional hard limit that is obviously indicated in the UI. When you're signing up where you set your "usage cap" warning, next to it should be an optional hard cap with big bold red letters "THIS WILL CUT YOU OFF THE MOMENT YOU GO ONE CENT OVER". So I can set e.g. a warning at $20 and a hard cap of $100.
I can subscribe to your service for a specific fee on a monthly basis ($20/month say), and take the risk of losing that month's fee if your service or I make mistakes, or I can choose to drop another $20 mid-month, or anything for convenience.
Saying that the computer will "control" the billing and can run haywire tells me that I don't want to be anywhere near your pile of bad incentives.
So my powerbills are predictable.
Whereas traffic spikes to websites are not.
This age of abusive AI crawlers and the non-revenue generating traffic has been a very real problem for me!
I think they explicitly said that.
I actually think network ACL triggers based on billing might be the only way to really enforce this.
I witnessed a DDoS attack once that changed how I think about billing. It was locally provisioned hardware and the attackers had saturated the switches. Naively I said "just block the CIDRs" but the problem was the incoming ram is so saturated that it can't even get to the point of "deny" in the firmware.
So from a technical perspective if there's an internal DDoS at AWS what do you do? Do you turn off the endpoint? Do you drop the sources from hitting it at the router? And even that costs money. Anyway that incident gave me a different level of appreciation for this challenge.
Edit: this is mainly targeted at the people complaining why this took so long. At some point in scaling even telling you "no sorry" in a nice way is expensive. I'm sure recruiters can sympathize with this nowdays.
Plus, nobody wants to be the fired PM who said "I spent our eng. hours to achieve -20% revenue".
It works for some non-B2Bs.
Even if we have a negotiated yearly contract for $X spend per year, maybe we’ll hit that spend in 6 months instead of 12. Having some kind of automated telemetry saying how we’re trending would be so useful.
I’ve gotten vague warnings from customer success people saying vaguely that, but without any warning of what’s truly happening. The more we abstract away from money (tokens, credits, etc), the more we need a way to translate right back to money, to see how close we’re getting to any limits over time.
I don’t want to find out in month 5 that the contract which was expected to cover a year is now going to run out in 14 days.
I know AWS and similar sites have no such concepts, but other than those, this is an existing option of most kinds of service providers.
Realistically, most providers can't even allow you to consume $10k usage if they don't have the certainty that you can pay up. Prepaid is what gives them that certainty.
https://devhumor.com/media/dilbert-s-team-writes-a-minivan
Phone service, bank card, home internet etc.
If you don't pay your bill than they just cancel your membership and it works ok.
People in western countries are just getting shafted by companies for (mostly) no reason because an alternative balance is just inconceivable.
If you don’t have a mechanism for enforcing hard caps, you don’t get to send customers a bill for unlimited amounts.
I had a personal development account for ~15 years. I tinker with infrastructure stuff and had built some centralized event reporting. One day about two years later I turned on sqs data events into cloudtrail. What I didn’t realize was that this closed a feedback loop and over the next couple of hours my run rate went to about $4k per day in cloudtrail+sqs usage.
I didn’t realize it until I hit the next months billing alarm immediately the next month. I’d racked up $25k in usage fees.
I’ll be using this feature. Nothing I run is worth that risk.
Seriously. You all asked for this.
I can’t think of anyone saying they would hate for AWS to support hard spending caps.
It seems like you’re saying “hey, you asked for a product, so you deserve for it to have a user-hostile feature”
Like hey, you asked for trains? Well, then you have no right to complain about any aspect of a train.
Not exactly the sort of case Simon has in mind, but I tell Claude to keep to hard daily limits on its OpenRouter spending for two long-running projects [1, 2].
A Routine for each project fires ever few hours, and Claude decides itself what to do in each session. It does tasks that require calls to other models through OpenRouter only when it is still within its daily budget for that project; after it reaches that cap, it does other tasks that don’t require extra spending.
[1] https://github.com/tkgally/je-dict-1
[2] https://github.com/tkgally/eex-dict
I had a spending limit on for $30, so why did it keep charging? Because the spending limit is meaningless without a hidden checkbox called “enforce spending limit,” which is (or at least was for me) off by default.
To OpenAI’s credit, they refunded the money.
But the idiocy is incredible, even allowing for this to be happen in a business is so infantile that the only hard cap that should be important is not to allow stupid people in the machine room.
If the CEO of the electric company didn't mandate circuit breakers, he should go to jail.
You can rack up an outrageous monthly electricity bill without tripping a breaker.
Google implemented caps because their competitors offered them. Before that, customers could choose one of several competitors, rent the GPUs at a fixed rate, or buy the GPUs and install them on-premises.
At no point was any law needed to solve any of this.
I know your post isn’t explicitly defending the platforms, but the arguments they use feel transparently flimsy.
Or if there was info that was after potentially horrible expensive operation.
That was blocking automated checking.
The entire MCP ecosystem is ludicrous. You’re paying for inference for an agent to make the same decisions over and over again, and yet the actions they’re taking can be so easily written by those same agents into a bash script you can run again and again, deterministically and for free.
MCP is the problem. Having agents “use a product on your behalf” is the problem.
The pattern you’re looking for is that agents should write scripts that use products for us, and that doesn’t need a new protocol.
AWS, is a loot box... Tokens are just in game currency, and that sales person is just metrics that have identified your spending as making you a whale.
Your average CTO from the last decade turned a fixed cost into variable spending that looks like a mobile game.
Maybe because good for me but not good for the majority, or just the big corps.
Cheers!
What on earth is Simon whittering on about?
This may happen also without vibecoding.
Article seemed clear on that?