5 ms·

> Because looking elsewhere in the PaaS space, instance-based pricing — or something similar — is still the norm. That's not the point. The point is that AppEn

by mtogo 15y ago

> Because looking elsewhere in the PaaS space, instance-based pricing — or something similar — is still the norm. That's not the point. The point is that AppEngine boosted their pricing from between 5x-25x depending on the project. People aren't mad that AppEngine is using instance-based pricing, they're mad that they bought into a proprietary system that has a lot of lock-in and then the system increased their pricing by a ludicrous amount.

nandemo 15y ago
What does it matter if they boosted by 10% or 2500%? If they boosted by 2500%, could it be that the previous price was really low? What if they weren't charging any money before, and then started charging? It would be an ∞% raise. Is it bad that they offered their service for free for a while? PS: feel free to point out what's wrong with my questions.
- Greedy_Fools 15y ago
  Good old fashioned bait and switch, my friend. Never gonna slide that by these people. Not a chance.
- groks 15y ago
  "could it be the previous price was really low?" We can answer this by comparing prices to other providers. For example: Amazon (a standardised but not a cheap provider) used to charge $0.15/GB bandwidth out but now charges $0.12/GB (and does not charge for bandwidth in): http://goo.gl/n1ZxZ http://goo.gl/n1ZxZ And this is tier one; it goes down to $0.05/GB or less for bulk bandwidth. Appengine used to charge $0.12/GB out, but under the new pricing will charge $0.15/GB out (and still charges $0.10/GB in): http://goo.gl/QgA3n http://goo.gl/QgA3n Does this suggest that Google was running a charity, that it is merely covering it's costs, and that Google's world-renowned infrastructure costs more than Amazon's?
  - nandemo 15y ago
    Thanks for the answer. I think that if it turns out to be too expensive, people will find alternatives. Maybe people who already use it and think that the development cost in order to migrate is too high will suck it up, but new customers will just go to other providers.
buff-a 15y ago
True. I could have lived with instance based pricing if it was actually reasonable. But its a real shame, because resource-based pricing really attracted me to the platform. Now they've just thrown in the towel. I'd rather they added metrics (and costs) for the missing resources (which appears to be RAM) than just give up and say "instances". Now we have to guess which resource we are over-using to cause another instance to start up.

by mtogo 15y ago

nandemo 15y ago

What does it matter if they boosted by 10% or 2500%? If they boosted by 2500%, could it be that the previous price was really low? What if they weren't charging any money before, and then started charging? It would be an ∞% raise. Is it bad that they offered their service for free for a while? PS: feel free to point out what's wrong with my questions.

Greedy_Fools 15y ago
Good old fashioned bait and switch, my friend. Never gonna slide that by these people. Not a chance.
groks 15y ago
"could it be the previous price was really low?" We can answer this by comparing prices to other providers. For example: Amazon (a standardised but not a cheap provider) used to charge $0.15/GB bandwidth out but now charges $0.12/GB (and does not charge for bandwidth in): http://goo.gl/n1ZxZ http://goo.gl/n1ZxZ And this is tier one; it goes down to $0.05/GB or less for bulk bandwidth. Appengine used to charge $0.12/GB out, but under the new pricing will charge $0.15/GB out (and still charges $0.10/GB in): http://goo.gl/QgA3n http://goo.gl/QgA3n Does this suggest that Google was running a charity, that it is merely covering it's costs, and that Google's world-renowned infrastructure costs more than Amazon's?
- nandemo 15y ago
  Thanks for the answer. I think that if it turns out to be too expensive, people will find alternatives. Maybe people who already use it and think that the development cost in order to migrate is too high will suck it up, but new customers will just go to other providers.

buff-a 15y ago

True. I could have lived with instance based pricing if it was actually reasonable. But its a real shame, because resource-based pricing really attracted me to the platform. Now they've just thrown in the towel. I'd rather they added metrics (and costs) for the missing resources (which appears to be RAM) than just give up and say "instances". Now we have to guess which resource we are over-using to cause another instance to start up.