6 ms·
Why shouldn't they charge for a great product ? When Google charges it's a problem when they don't charge it's a problem.
by mav3rick 6y ago
Why shouldn't they charge for a great product ? When Google charges it's a problem when they don't charge it's a problem.
- codegladiator 6y ago> Why shouldn't they charge for a great product ? They should charge from the beginning. > When Google charges it's a problem Where is that ? It's a problem when it's abrupt.
- tifadg1 6y agoIt's easy taking the high road when you're not the one actually doing something. As a business, if you're getting something for free, assume someone else is subsidising you, as there's no such thing as free lunch.
- codegladiator 6y agoNot sure what is the point you are trying to make. What high road did I take ? > if you're getting something for free, assume someone else is subsidising you, as there's no such thing as free lunch And how does this matter to the commend that OP made which I was replying to ?
- nicoburns 6y agoNo, when they tout the product as free or cheap, and then only later up the pricing by 10x, once people have built their business around the older pricing model. That's a problem.
- mav3rick 6y agoIf you don't want to pay then roll your own solution or use this startup
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bmikaili 6y agoGod forbid someone wants to get money for their product
- sauwan 6y agoNo one's saying they shouldn't. If the current business model isn't sustainable, then it's a predatory lock-in scheme to monopolize the market and then take advantage of the people who've become dependant on your product.
- Tostino 6y agoCouldn't agree more. If major price changes are required to make the product work well after customers have been "enticed" in with a reasonable cost, it is underhanded to say the least.
- sparkie 6y agoIt's more than just "entice". Google has crippled apps which don't use FCM since Oreo by limiting their ability to run alternatives which have a blocking socket waiting for new information. Only choice is to use FCM or lose essential functionality.
- mav3rick 6y agoFCM is part of the core API now. They don't want other shitty solutions constantly waking the device up and eating your battery. That is why only FCM i.e. a trusted source is white listed. It's easy to peddle half truths hear just give it an anti Google color and carry your pitch forks.
- inlined 6y agoFormer Firebase and Parse employee. Back when Parse was coincidentally working on GCM (aka FCM) support to improve reliability over our own blocking-socket push network Google threatened to shut down our customers if they used our network. I personally liked our approach which used our network in China and Google elsewhere. I would believe Google were just concerned with Android quality, except our customers reported that they were being scraped from meetup lists, interviewed, and told that Facebook was pricing Parse low to steal data from our users.
- tssva 6y agoIf you've built your business so it is dependent on someone else's pricing model the problem is of your own making.
- itsspring 6y agoThen I think you would agree:Don’t trust Google to keep the prices low. Or any cloud SaaS company that has raised prices
- Havoc 6y agoThink you’ll have a hard time building a business without being dependent on a suppliers Pricing model
- brokenmachine 6y agoThe problem is making yourself completely dependent on a single supplier.
- bawana 6y agoThe pseudo-democratic silicon valley model of freemium is the problem. Seducing you into using something with the word 'free' but then trapping you with a changing API and cost structure. They should be up front with the realization that our ability to pay THEM is not commensurate with use by OUR users. Fees should based on OUR revenue, not usage.
- theturtletalks 6y agoThat's why I always look for an open-source alternative before using a free tier app. The free tiers are subsidized by paid ones so eventually users will have to pay up. Will be adding Supbase to https://opensource.builders https://opensource.builders.
- mav3rick 6y agoThis is not a charity
- hilbertseries 6y ago> Fees should based on OUR revenue, not usage. So if someone builds a business that makes very little money but uses a ton of compute, the cloud provider should subsidize that? And conversely if you make a ton of money using barely any compute, you should pay your cloud provider a premium? This business model makes no sense.
- mav3rick 6y agoSeen a lot of non sense but the op's model is right up there.
- vikramkr 6y agoThe cloud provider would very much like to have the premium part of the model without the subsidy. Theres a reason a lot of b2b enterprise products dont list prices on their websites and ask that you contact sales instead. Value based pricing and all.
- valuearb 6y agoIf you want to use a lot of resources without paying the cost of providing them, you are the definition of a bad customer. Your service provider isn’t your VC, not lest of all because you aren’t giving them equity. Bad customers should always be fired ASAP so they don’t damage the business. Ideally a business provides a service it’s customers are happy to pay the costs of, and not just the costs, but also a significant profit. That leads to a virtuous circle where the business is incentivized to continue to invest in the service, adding more servers, engineers and support personnel to add more valuable features for its customers. Otherwise it’s just a matter of time before they post that farewell letter and give you the phase out date the servers are shutting down.
- sparkie 6y agoThe problem is they've forced people to use the product by hindering their ability to run background services without it. Since Oreo, background services are turned to idle unless they receive high priority push notifications from FCM.
- mav3rick 6y agoAnd this is done to tackle the horrendous battery issues.
- Chris2048 6y ago> when they don't charge it's a problem only if it means they'll kill the service, or "you're the product"-ize its users