WebSockets cost us $1M on our AWS bill

Neither the title nor the article are painting it as an AWS issue, but as a websocket issue, because the protocol implicitly requires all transferred data to be copied multiple times.

If you call out your vendor, the issue usually lies with some specific issue with them or their service. The title obviously states AWS.

If I said that "childbirth cost us 5000 on our <hospital name> bill", you assume the issue is with the hospital.

I disagree. Like @turtlebits, I was waiting for the part of the story where websocket connections between their AWS resources somehow got billed at Amazon's internet data egress rates.

I didn't know this - why is this the case?

Only for people that just read headlines and make technical decisions based on them. Are we catering to them now? The title is factual and straightforward.

And also highlights a meaningful irrelevance.

The idea that clearer titles are just babying some class of people is perverse.

Titles are the foremost means of deciding what to read, for anyone of any sophistication. Clearer titles benefit everyone.

The subject matter is meaningful to more than AWS users, but non-AWS users are going to be less likely to read it based on the title.