I guess what I was going for was they were forgoing profits in the short term to preemptively shut out possible future competitors. They already have a big lead here... so they are trading some profits (realized through cost savings) for extending that lead.
Don't feel like a troll for pointing out that I was being redundantly redundant.
I am half joking. I realize there are real costs, albeit very small [orders of magnitude lower than AWS], for data transfer. For my application, I would love to outsource storage, but the economics using AWS are not favorable. I will continue to host my own storage.
If be entering the market we're talking about the magical platform that will sync all your data and applications across all your devices, wait no, just Windows devices, then maybe. But I hardly see that being anywhere close to S3.