From S3 to R2: An economic opportunity

Is there any reason to not use R2 over a competing storage service? I already use Cloudflare for lots of other things, and don't personally care all that much about the "Cloudflare's near-monopoly as a web intermediary is dangerous" arguments or anything like that.

1. This is the most obvious one, but S3 access control is done via IAM. For better or for worse, IAM has a lot of functionality. I can configure a specific EC2 instance to have access to a specific file in S3 without the need to deal with API keys and such. I can search CloudTrail for all the times a specific user read a certain file.

2. R2 doesn't support file versioning like S3. As I understand it, Wasabi supports it.

3. R2's storage pricing is designed for frequently accessed files. They charge a flat $0.015 per GB-month stored. This is a lot cheaper than S3 Standard standard pricing ($0.023 per GB-month), but more expensive than Glacier and marginally more expensive than S3 Standard - Infrequent Access. Wasabi is even cheaper at $0.0068 per GB-month but with a 1 TB billing minimum.

4. If you want public access to the files in your S3 bucket using your own domain name, you can create a CNAME record with whatever DNS provider you use. With R2 you cannot use a custom domain unless the domain is set up in Cloudflare. I had to register a new domain name for this purpose since I could not switch DNS providers for something like this.

5. If you care about the geographical region your data is stored in, AWS has way more options. At a previous job I needed to control the specific US state my data was in, which is easy to do in AWS if there is an AWS Region there. In contrast R2 and Wasabi both have few options. R2 has a "Jurisdictional Restriction" feature in Beta right now to restrict data to a specific legal jurisdiction, but they only support EU right now. Not helpful if you need your data to be stored in Brazil or something.