25 ms·

Maybe you misunderstood the point. $9 will not be a fee, but a minimum spend. If your effective resource usage is <$9 you'll pay a $9 bill (not $9 + the bill

by vanni 15y ago

Maybe you misunderstood the point. $9 will not be a fee, but a minimum spend. If your effective resource usage is <$9 you'll pay a $9 bill (not $9 + the bill amount, as previously Google stated); if your bill is >= $9 you'll pay that bill amount (not $9 + the bill amount, as previously Google stated). It is however a good change. Hope it helps.

ramses0 15y ago
Yes. On months you go over the old free limit by $0.05, you will be charged $9.00 instead of their proposed $9.05. On months you go over the old free limit by $12.34 you will be charged $12.34 instead of $21.34. It is a good change (minimum spend v. privilege to pay) but still quite a big change from the old pricing structure.
- groks 15y ago
  > On months you go over the old free limit by $0.05, you will be charged $9.00 instead of their proposed $9.05. No, you will be charged at least $9 every month because you can't tell in advance when/if you will exceed the free quota, see you must leave billing enabled all the time, just in case. The new proposal is better than the previous proposal but it still sucks. Large customers get $9 of value and startups get shafted.
  - skybrian 15y ago
    Are there really startups that can't afford $9 per month?
    - ramses0 15y ago
      For me, as a potential user of GAE for a personal side project, I am already paying $9/mo (let's assume) for my standard shared hosting with shell access. Now, I want to try out GAE. I do so with local / dev appserver and free junk until I get things kind of working and start getting traffic / traction. I guess the ~good~ point to all this is that if you are going over the free limit (ie: start getting serious traffic) what el goog wants you to do is put on adwords, earn $9/mo and then turn right around and give it back to them for "hosting costs". Really it just leaves a huge sour taste in people's mouth that this is such a dramatic (and un-warned!) change in pricing for really a monopoly service. Assume that you were heavily invested in GAE / DataStore and have... ohh... 1tb of data or something with them. Where / how else are you going to solve these "impossible" problems that the datastore solves for you? Much better to not get tied down with google's quirky (yet scalable) model in the first place so at least you have the ability to move between competitive providers instead of getting stuck with a monopoly provider that doesn't know how (socially) to charge people for services.
ultrasaurus 15y ago
Yes that was my understanding. I was using a simple GAE app to serve some of the static content for some sites (GAE is a favourite tool in my toolbox). It was fast and I rarely went over 1gb/day but when I did it would only cost a few cents. I expect that is exactly the kind of application that they want to dissuade with this change.
- detst 15y ago
  Care to elaborate a little about how well static content works for you? I'm working on something where I was thinking about using S3 for static and building a really simple GAE datastore-backed JSON API pulled in from the static files. Nothing complex but I want it to perform as well as possible. If GAE would work just as well, I'm thinking I should just keep everything there. Do the front-end cache servers prevent unnecessary hits on the app server instances?

by vanni 15y ago

ramses0 15y ago

Yes. On months you go over the old free limit by $0.05, you will be charged $9.00 instead of their proposed $9.05. On months you go over the old free limit by $12.34 you will be charged $12.34 instead of $21.34. It is a good change (minimum spend v. privilege to pay) but still quite a big change from the old pricing structure.

groks 15y ago
> On months you go over the old free limit by $0.05, you will be charged $9.00 instead of their proposed $9.05. No, you will be charged at least $9 every month because you can't tell in advance when/if you will exceed the free quota, see you must leave billing enabled all the time, just in case. The new proposal is better than the previous proposal but it still sucks. Large customers get $9 of value and startups get shafted.
- skybrian 15y ago
  Are there really startups that can't afford $9 per month?
  - ramses0 15y ago
    For me, as a potential user of GAE for a personal side project, I am already paying $9/mo (let's assume) for my standard shared hosting with shell access. Now, I want to try out GAE. I do so with local / dev appserver and free junk until I get things kind of working and start getting traffic / traction. I guess the ~good~ point to all this is that if you are going over the free limit (ie: start getting serious traffic) what el goog wants you to do is put on adwords, earn $9/mo and then turn right around and give it back to them for "hosting costs". Really it just leaves a huge sour taste in people's mouth that this is such a dramatic (and un-warned!) change in pricing for really a monopoly service. Assume that you were heavily invested in GAE / DataStore and have... ohh... 1tb of data or something with them. Where / how else are you going to solve these "impossible" problems that the datastore solves for you? Much better to not get tied down with google's quirky (yet scalable) model in the first place so at least you have the ability to move between competitive providers instead of getting stuck with a monopoly provider that doesn't know how (socially) to charge people for services.

ultrasaurus 15y ago

Yes that was my understanding. I was using a simple GAE app to serve some of the static content for some sites (GAE is a favourite tool in my toolbox). It was fast and I rarely went over 1gb/day but when I did it would only cost a few cents. I expect that is exactly the kind of application that they want to dissuade with this change.

detst 15y ago
Care to elaborate a little about how well static content works for you? I'm working on something where I was thinking about using S3 for static and building a really simple GAE datastore-backed JSON API pulled in from the static files. Nothing complex but I want it to perform as well as possible. If GAE would work just as well, I'm thinking I should just keep everything there. Do the front-end cache servers prevent unnecessary hits on the app server instances?