4 ms·

Announcing Lower, Simpler Pricing

47 points by mikexstudios 11y ago

buckbova 11y ago
I just got this email too. Price jumps from 5 bucks to 50. Still too pricey for me. I did explore what they have to offer and it is fairly extensive. I'm not sure about performance though. I did not test that.
- inlined 11y ago
  Do you have a proposed model which is sustainable for both parties? What seems both fair and reasonable to you?
  - buckbova 11y ago
    I can't speak on sustainability because I can't speak to cost to support that much infrastructure. Just seems a little low on storage and I think AWS's free tier offers more.
jenkinsj 11y ago
I'm glad there is a simple $5 plan. This makes hacking on my small project (http://fireform.org/ http://fireform.org/ - plug) a much more reasonable proposition.
- listic 11y ago
  What is it supposed to do above Google Forms+Sheets?
  - jenkinsj 11y ago
    1) No Google branding 2) Email notifications 3) Use your CSS to customize the look of your website's form.
sync 11y ago
Summary of what's changed is available on their blog: https://www.firebase.com/blog/2015-08-19-announcing-lower-simpler-pricing.html https://www.firebase.com/blog/2015-08-19-announcing-lower-si...
- sctb 11y ago
  Thanks, we updated the link from https://www.firebase.com/pricing.html https://www.firebase.com/pricing.html.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mozumder 11y ago
Are they worried about competition from Apple's CoreData, which Apple developers get as part of their registration?
- dgoujard 11y ago
  You can't use iCloud as backend for other platforms. If you like to port your iOS app for android you cannot use the same backend. It's a major restriction if you wish to extend your app in other devices.
- joeblau 11y ago
  CoreData doesn't behave the same way Firebase does. CoreData and CloudKit are more like Facebook's Parse or Google's Mobile Backend.
chrisfosterelli 11y ago
In my opinion this makes Firebase way more approachable. Previously, their limited number of connections made it very, very expensive very quickly. Storage seems like a much more logical scaling factor.
teen 11y ago
if only firebase could scale... they have so much downtime
- sounds 11y ago
  It should be obvious they are working on it! But only time will tell if it's good enough.
- abeisgreat 11y ago
  I know many people on the Firebase team very closely and they're definitely aware of the downtime issues and they're making it a top priority, I'm sure it will be improving very soon.
rco8786 11y ago
What's the difference between the free plan and the $5 plan? They look exactly the same, unless I'm blind.
- detaro 11y ago
  custom domain support
- spicyj 11y ago
  Paid plan has custom domain support.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
listic 11y ago
What is the actual difference between the Free ($0) and Spark ($5/mo.) plans? I see the difference in custom domain, but it hardly matters with a backend service like Firebase, doesn't it?
- abeisgreat 11y ago
  I think there are a lot of flat file hosts that complete with Firebase Hosting for around $5/month and the Spark plan is just to reach feature parity with them by allowing custom domains.
- chrisfosterelli 11y ago
  Firebase can host your front-end content on its CDN, SSL supported, via their Firebase Hosting package[0]. This is the reason to use the Spark plan, so you have a custom domain for that, I believe. [0] https://www.firebase.com/docs/hosting/guide/custom-domain.html https://www.firebase.com/docs/hosting/guide/custom-domain.ht...
Eridrus 11y ago
I spent a little bit of time examining different options in this space a few weeks back, I found these options: Firebase Couchbase Mobile Sync Gateway CouchDB PouchDB Amazon Cognito Azure Mobile Data Sync Cloudant My main issues with Firebase (in order of importance) were: a) Uncontrollable sync. It seems to always use a web sockets/long poll, and count how many connections you have. Which is not appropriate when data changes infrequently and you're concerned about your users battery life. Mainly, I wanted to be able to do push using GCM/etc. b) Single unmodifiable conflict resolution strategy c) SaaS-only It seems very polished and easy to get started with, but since there was no upgrade path to anything else, the fact that it really wasn't a good fit for my sync needs made it seem like a bad option. I'm not a huge fan of these systems in general since they have you connecting to a dedicated database that you plug code into (eg as a sync function), rather than exposing building blocks for you to build a sync service. But I'm still using pouchdb on the client for the moment, and I haven't fully figured out what the backend will be, but at least I have a few options in pouchdb-server/couchbase/couchdb/cloudant.
- tehbeard 11y ago
  I don't see rethinkdb in that list, admittedly you'd have to roll your own layer between database and user, but I think it might be a good option for a roll your own firebase clone.
- abeisgreat 11y ago
  (Full disclosure, ex-Firebase employee and I make my living building Firebase powered apps) In response to your issues... A) If you really wanted, you could make HTTP requests to the REST API (https://www.firebase.com/docs/rest/api/ https://www.firebase.com/docs/rest/api/) and that would not force you to use any long standing connection or any more battery life than other options. B) I think this is a matter of preference. Firebase chooses simplicity over power in this case. The vast majority of developers and applications don't call for custom conflict resolution strategies. Firebase lets you focus on your app, not on these fine-grained details. C) The SaaS-only argument is valid if you have a huge ops team who you can dedicate to running a complicated, stateful, realtime system like Firebase. However, 99% of the time, we don't have this luxury, so we pay the Firebase team to do it. I look at the SaaS-only aspect as a big plus. I know they're running Firebase in an ideal situation on ideal machines and I don't have to think farther than that. Once again, it just lets me focus on my app, not the details. I can't disagree, if you have very low-level / complex sync needs, Firebase probably isn't a good fit for that app, but in terms of upgrade path, it doesn't have one because it is unique and exceptional. It's a little crummy that there aren't competitors you could hop to if Firebase went away, but Firebase doesn't have many competitors because they do such a good job and blow others out of the water when they pop up. Regardless, I don't know your app, so it could very well not be a great fit, but it definitely has legions of benefits over Pouchdb/etc/etc in a huge number of situations.
CyberDildonics 11y ago
Come on guys, this ad isn't even disguised as a wired article.

47 points by mikexstudios 11y ago

I just got this email too. Price jumps from 5 bucks to 50. Still too pricey for me. I did explore what they have to offer and it is fairly extensive. I'm not sure about performance though. I did not test that.

inlined 11y ago
Do you have a proposed model which is sustainable for both parties? What seems both fair and reasonable to you?
- buckbova 11y ago
  I can't speak on sustainability because I can't speak to cost to support that much infrastructure. Just seems a little low on storage and I think AWS's free tier offers more.

jenkinsj 11y ago

I'm glad there is a simple $5 plan. This makes hacking on my small project (http://fireform.org/ http://fireform.org/ - plug) a much more reasonable proposition.

listic 11y ago
What is it supposed to do above Google Forms+Sheets?
- jenkinsj 11y ago
  1) No Google branding 2) Email notifications 3) Use your CSS to customize the look of your website's form.

sync 11y ago

Summary of what's changed is available on their blog: https://www.firebase.com/blog/2015-08-19-announcing-lower-simpler-pricing.html https://www.firebase.com/blog/2015-08-19-announcing-lower-si...

sctb 11y ago
Thanks, we updated the link from https://www.firebase.com/pricing.html https://www.firebase.com/pricing.html.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mozumder 11y ago

Are they worried about competition from Apple's CoreData, which Apple developers get as part of their registration?

dgoujard 11y ago
You can't use iCloud as backend for other platforms. If you like to port your iOS app for android you cannot use the same backend. It's a major restriction if you wish to extend your app in other devices.
joeblau 11y ago
CoreData doesn't behave the same way Firebase does. CoreData and CloudKit are more like Facebook's Parse or Google's Mobile Backend.

chrisfosterelli 11y ago

In my opinion this makes Firebase way more approachable. Previously, their limited number of connections made it very, very expensive very quickly. Storage seems like a much more logical scaling factor.

teen 11y ago

if only firebase could scale... they have so much downtime

sounds 11y ago
It should be obvious they are working on it! But only time will tell if it's good enough.
abeisgreat 11y ago
I know many people on the Firebase team very closely and they're definitely aware of the downtime issues and they're making it a top priority, I'm sure it will be improving very soon.

rco8786 11y ago

What's the difference between the free plan and the $5 plan? They look exactly the same, unless I'm blind.

detaro 11y ago
custom domain support
spicyj 11y ago
Paid plan has custom domain support.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

listic 11y ago

What is the actual difference between the Free ($0) and Spark ($5/mo.) plans? I see the difference in custom domain, but it hardly matters with a backend service like Firebase, doesn't it?

abeisgreat 11y ago
I think there are a lot of flat file hosts that complete with Firebase Hosting for around $5/month and the Spark plan is just to reach feature parity with them by allowing custom domains.
chrisfosterelli 11y ago
Firebase can host your front-end content on its CDN, SSL supported, via their Firebase Hosting package[0]. This is the reason to use the Spark plan, so you have a custom domain for that, I believe. [0] https://www.firebase.com/docs/hosting/guide/custom-domain.html https://www.firebase.com/docs/hosting/guide/custom-domain.ht...

Eridrus 11y ago

I spent a little bit of time examining different options in this space a few weeks back, I found these options: Firebase Couchbase Mobile Sync Gateway CouchDB PouchDB Amazon Cognito Azure Mobile Data Sync Cloudant My main issues with Firebase (in order of importance) were: a) Uncontrollable sync. It seems to always use a web sockets/long poll, and count how many connections you have. Which is not appropriate when data changes infrequently and you're concerned about your users battery life. Mainly, I wanted to be able to do push using GCM/etc. b) Single unmodifiable conflict resolution strategy c) SaaS-only It seems very polished and easy to get started with, but since there was no upgrade path to anything else, the fact that it really wasn't a good fit for my sync needs made it seem like a bad option. I'm not a huge fan of these systems in general since they have you connecting to a dedicated database that you plug code into (eg as a sync function), rather than exposing building blocks for you to build a sync service. But I'm still using pouchdb on the client for the moment, and I haven't fully figured out what the backend will be, but at least I have a few options in pouchdb-server/couchbase/couchdb/cloudant.

tehbeard 11y ago
I don't see rethinkdb in that list, admittedly you'd have to roll your own layer between database and user, but I think it might be a good option for a roll your own firebase clone.
abeisgreat 11y ago
(Full disclosure, ex-Firebase employee and I make my living building Firebase powered apps) In response to your issues... A) If you really wanted, you could make HTTP requests to the REST API (https://www.firebase.com/docs/rest/api/ https://www.firebase.com/docs/rest/api/) and that would not force you to use any long standing connection or any more battery life than other options. B) I think this is a matter of preference. Firebase chooses simplicity over power in this case. The vast majority of developers and applications don't call for custom conflict resolution strategies. Firebase lets you focus on your app, not on these fine-grained details. C) The SaaS-only argument is valid if you have a huge ops team who you can dedicate to running a complicated, stateful, realtime system like Firebase. However, 99% of the time, we don't have this luxury, so we pay the Firebase team to do it. I look at the SaaS-only aspect as a big plus. I know they're running Firebase in an ideal situation on ideal machines and I don't have to think farther than that. Once again, it just lets me focus on my app, not the details. I can't disagree, if you have very low-level / complex sync needs, Firebase probably isn't a good fit for that app, but in terms of upgrade path, it doesn't have one because it is unique and exceptional. It's a little crummy that there aren't competitors you could hop to if Firebase went away, but Firebase doesn't have many competitors because they do such a good job and blow others out of the water when they pop up. Regardless, I don't know your app, so it could very well not be a great fit, but it definitely has legions of benefits over Pouchdb/etc/etc in a huge number of situations.

CyberDildonics 11y ago

Come on guys, this ad isn't even disguised as a wired article.