(Perhaps too easy, even.. Rig up a domain registration API, content generator, and an S3 uploader and you could have a script pumping out auto-generated "content" sites all day without any hassles right from your terminal window.)
The only cost now is hosting the website at S3 and those costs are substantially lower than competitors. NearlyFreeSpeech is the closest web host to S3 that I can think of and their prices for storage are $10/GB ($0.01 per megabyte month) whilst S3 starts at $0.140 per GB.
If your site gets hit incredibly heavily Amazon S3 will also handle the load transparently. If you find that your site is becoming popular in Europe or Asia than it's also supremely easy to push your site from S3 to CloudFront.
I wonder how far you can take this though? How complex a site can you set up using only static hosting and external dynamic services like Disqus, MailChimp and Docs?
[EDIT] As TeHCrAzY said I ovestated the cost of bandwidth transfer but whilst bandwidth falls rapidly it still falls slower than S3 (at ~10TB of transfer it approaches S3's starting price). More importantly I realised I undestated the cost of storage - it's $10/GB and not $1/GB making it closer to 100 times more expensive than S3.
From  in the parent post:
After you've transferred You get
up to 1 GB 1GB / $1 ($1.00 / GB)
10 GB 2GB / $1 ($0.50 / GB)
100 GB 3GB / $1 ($0.33 / GB)
1,000 GB 4GB / $1 ($0.25 / GB)
10,000 GB 5GB / $1 ($0.20 / GB)
Check out https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/services/bwcalc for a calculator.
I also noticed that I'd stated the storage cost as $1/GB whilst it's actually $10/GB (specifically $10.24/GB or $0.01 per megabyte per month) which means that S3 is really far ahead if your site has any substantial amount of content.
Phase 1: Everyone has a static page, without JS, but with animated gifs, counters and guestbook scripts linked from other sites.
Phase 2: PHP becomes popular, static sites are suddenly 'lame', as everyone wants to show off their server-side skills. For some sites, even the CSS and JS, and images are generated dynamically on the fly.
We're back to the 90's :)
Previously you were always limited by a few dynamic
parts of your site such as comments, newsletter
registration and questionnaires but now between
services like Disqus, MailChimp and Google Docs,
you really don't need to pay for any of that
anymore. All the dynamic parts of your site are
it was on HN not too long ago
Daniel Hoelbing's Importer.rb will do that for you.
(curiously, the domain name I experimented with this on late last year is strangely appropriate here: http://www.damhik.com/ )
Unlimited hosting for 5 bucks? How's world class with a CDN for 45 cents?
Edit: I didn't see the 'data in' vs. 'data out'. I think it's actually worse: the first 1GB out free, and 33.33GB extra at $0.150/GB. So 5 bucks doesn't quite give you 35GB!
 My guess is that with this 'unlimited' you'll never get even close to 50GB of monthly data transfer.
www.mycompany.com - OK
mycompany.com - needs an EC2 instance and Elastic IP
This is because the only way to point your domain at Amazon is with a CNAME record and DNS does not support default CNAME records. It can only work if you add your CNAME record to the 'com.' top-level domain, which is impossible. See https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=32044
However, the fact that AWS crushes entire business models with every move they make relativizes their slow pace somewhat.
I'm mostly a product guy, and the entire experience of setting up jekyll was exhilarating.
S3 was pretty easy to set up for hosting.
But, I moved the site back to linode for htaccess to work.
Do I need to create two S3 buckets with duplicated content?
I currently host my (Jekyll-powered) site with S3/CloudFront. The error pages is awesome, but it only works if accessed through S3, not CloudFront.
Maybe this is silly. It is certainly not like they're likely to pull down any of my stuff. And I do have some largish files hosted there for convenience, but I'm wary about becoming dependent on them in any way.
(Wikileaks was hosting their webpage on amazon, not the leaked cables themselves. Amazon pulled their account without having gotten a court order or giving them any warning, and they weren't hosting anything illegal there anyway.)
This same question could be asked about any hosting company that hasn't been presented with such a request.
I'd be interested in hearing about hosting companies that have, and that stood up to them.
The US is supposed to be a country of rule of law. They should need to get a court order.
(disclaimer: founder is an old college friend)
how much would you pay for this feature?
Sorry, I just had to point it out. :)
Sometimes I just want to create some static pages, but I was forced to use either CMS or things like wordpress.
Now I guess there is a solution which is also super reliable.
AWS is just amazing.
Wtf?! To create static pages, I open Emacs and type there. No need of a CMS or Wordpress to create an HTML page!
Then to host it:
scp page.html email@example.com:~/public_html/
Hosting a website on S3 is nice, but it's not simpler than what is already possible if you own a server. If you don't already own one, I'm not sure setting up an AWS account + client code is easier than creating a new VPS account. I surely would prefer to set up a Linux VPS, which is an environment I'm confortable with.
Regarding the costs, I rent one private (not virtual) server for 20 euros/month, and host several (static and dynamic) sites on it, so it's actually cheaper than going the AWS road. Uptime last time I logged: 560 days (aka reliable enough for me).
Some people really suck at these things.
> Regarding the costs, I rent one private (not virtual) server for 20 euros/month, and host several (static and dynamic) sites on it, so it's actually cheaper than going the AWS road. Uptime last time I logged: 560 days (aka reliable enough for me).
S3 will cost literally pennies for hosting a simple static website. A VPS is orders of magnitude more expensive.
As an entrepreneur do you also use other entrepreneur's/start-up's services or just rely on the big (market share) players in the market? A startup is hard so do you go out of your way to help support other smaller service providers?
If you have an opportunity to support competition in the marketplace by not flocking to the lowest price(Walmart) but paying a bit more for a smaller service, do you make that sacrifice?
Knowing that NearlyFreeSpeech.Net appears to offer similar functionality, why choose a larger provider like Amazon if you have the mindset of a founder?
If they're not much, much better than the incumbents they're competing with, they're going to go out of business, leaving you with a broken dependency.
Try doing that with juggernauts such as Google or Amazon.