The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL
If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.
UPDATE 2017-10-30: With gratitude the CoreOS team has provided updated information on their pricing, however, I stand by my conclusion that the effective cost is lower when you deploy monster machines. The cost per node of my 1 CPU Intel NUC is the same as a 96 CPU server when you get beyond 10 nodes. I'll also reiterate that while my pricing notes are not currently accurate they have withdrawn their price sheets.
But their Container Linux pricing is still out there...
As a final comment... I like CoreOS. I like the company and their approach to their products. At $100 per machine per month I think VMWare ESXi might still be a better value.
Kelly here with the CoreOS communications team. Wanted to check with you about a blog post from your website, from 2016, http://www.richardbucker.com/2016/07/entry-level-cost-for-coreostectonic.html
What is listed is not currently accurate. We would like to request, kindly, if you could please update the piece to let your readers know to contact CoreOS at firstname.lastname@example.org or https://coreos.com/tectonic/ for the most accurate, up-to-date quote in pricing about Tectonic.
Please let us know if this is possible, and thank you.