- The Routing Intent by Leonardo Furtado
- Posts
- When $100 Million Cloud Bills Make Sense
When $100 Million Cloud Bills Make Sense
Not all expensive cloud bills are bad, and not all cheap ones are smart. Learn how to interpret cloud cost through the lens of architecture, performance, and business alignment.
Leonardo Furtado
September 08, 2025
1. The Outrage Trap
Every few months, a headline explodes across social media:
“Startup spends $100 million a year on AWS!”
“$300,000 per day to run a SaaS platform… who signed off on that?”
The response is always the same: a mix of disbelief, ridicule, and hot takes about how “you could run that on a Raspberry Pi.” Suddenly, engineers, investors, and product managers all become self-appointed FinOps experts, diagnosing architectural incompetence from a headline.
The fact of the matter is that this is the uncomfortable truth:
A large cloud bill doesn’t mean someone failed. It often means they succeeded—at scale.
In reality, many of the companies behind these so-called “eye-watering” infrastructure bills are running complex, latency-sensitive, globally distributed platforms. Their cloud usage isn’t the result of reckless provisioning or a forgotten S3 bucket; it’s the direct consequence of intentional architecture aligned with business outcomes.
In this article, we’ll take a closer look at anonymized real-world scenarios, companies with workloads that justify $100M+ annual cloud spend. We’ll dissect what those numbers really mean through the lens of:
Performance requirements and architectural trade-offs
Network design complexity and operational reality
Cost structures and margin targets
FinOps principles and optimization techniques
We’ll also highlight where things go wrong, like when large cloud bills are the result of waste or poor design, and why that distinction matters more than ever in today’s economic climate.
This isn’t about defending high cloud bills blindly. It’s about giving you the tools to read those numbers intelligently, contextually, and with the technical and economic nuance they deserve.