Capacity pricing plans do not align with AWS recommendations

Question & Answer
, ,
1

I feel like the minimum plan of $250/month for the capacity pricing does not align well with other AWS recommendations.

AWS recommends that each developer should have their own AWS account. This means that each developer account needs to have a $250/month subscription to be able to develop solutions that use anonymous embedding. We have 4 developers on our team, and this would be a $1,000/mo expense to just lightly use this feature (it is part of a much bigger scope).

We are actively avoiding this feature for now for this exact reason.

Do you have any plans to reduce this to the pay-as-you-go approach that the majority of other AWS services follow?

Thanks!

2

Hi @m0ltar ,

Thanks for the feedback. In general, 1 QuickSight account per AWS account.

In your scenario with 4 developers, do I understand correctly that you have 4 AWS accounts ? . As you are looking at an embedding scenario, you are for example running the same web application in those 4 accounts ? . Is like ( Staging , Development , QA , Prod ) ?

Kind regards,
Koushik

1 Like
3

Hi Koushik,

Yes, your explanations and assumptions are almost correct.

We have a sandbox account for each developer (4 accounts).

Then workload accounts for QA, staging, and prod.

4

Hi @m0ltar ,

In the current scenario, since this is an embedding use-case , most of the development happens in your application code which is making those api calls to QuickSight. What I can think of is then to use the 1 QuickSight account for managing multiple environments ( Manage multiple environments in a single QuickSight account: 2023 Amazon QuickSight Learning Series - YouTube ) .

Kind regards,
Koushik