3 ms·

let's hope it happens soon, I'm pretty sick of this reality where companies get to charge you whatever they want and it's designed to always be your fault

Eddy_Viscosity2 7mo ago
> I'm pretty sick of this reality where companies get to charge you whatever they want and it's designed to always be your fault But have you considered it from the companies POV? Charging whatever you like and its always the customers fault is a pretty sweet deal. Up next in the innovation pipeline is charging customers extra fees for something or other. It'll be great!
- cwmoore 7mo ago
  Healthy, even.
- shimman 7mo ago
  Why should I care about the companies POV? The company always wants to rat fuck everyone to make money. The company should be legally compelled to care about the customer because that's the only way these things change.
- SoftTalker 7mo ago
  This is just the utility model. It's nothing particularly nefarious. Consider what your electric utility, your water utility, etc. do. If you use more, you pay more. If someone comes around and hooks up a garden hose to your outside faucet and steals your water, or plugs an extension cord into your outside outlet and steals your electricity, you still pay. Unless you can catch the thief and make him pay.
  - cool_dude85 7mo ago
    Funny enough, the utility business broadly wants to move away from this model to more of a cap-based prepaid model. Where I live, to get on the standard payment system may require a quite hefty deposit up front, but the prepaid payment option does not. I get the impression that, if not for customer sentiment and inertia, this would be the default option.
AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
You're configuring something that costs money (electricity, hardware, real estate) to provide. Either it's "pay as you go" or you have a flat rate and a cap. If you have a cap and then your thing hits the front page and suddenly has 10000% more legitimate traffic than usual, and you want the legitimate traffic, they're going to get an error page instead of what you want. If there is no cap, you're going to get a large bill. People hate both of those things and will complain regardless of which one actually happens. The main thing Google is screwing up here is not giving you the choice between them.
- Nathanba 7mo ago
  it's not an either or, they can easily let me configure any kind of behavior that I want. No cap, a hard cap, a soft cap, a cap that I program with a python script, a cap where I throttle, a cap where I opt in to deleting certain machines to save money. It can all be done. People are complaining because obvious features are not provided. People would not be complaining if they had all the options that we needed to control how to scale resources in response to load, not just technical load but also financial load.
  - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
    You can already do any of those things in your own code when making the API requests. The issue here is, if you unintentionally try to make a billion expensive requests or allow someone else to do it against your account, do you want them to automatically turn off your stuff or do you want the bill that comes if they don't?
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
      You seem to not comprehend the concept of informed choice. Upstream in the comments someone said they expect the EU might soon rule this type of billing illegal. That doesn't mean it becomes illegal, it just means yet another reaffirmation or reminder that - yes - this is indeed illegal. You said that no fixed response -whether that is allow unexpected billing to increase without limit upon a surge vs serving error pages- will be accepted by the clientele, because some want it one way and others want it the other way. Why would you force a single shoe size onto a population? Give them the choice. Whenever freedom of choice is violated in the name of market freedom, it is nearly always a violation of law, it's just a matter of hoping one lives in a jurisdiction that upholds its laws > The issue here is, if you unintentionally try to make a billion expensive requests or allow someone else to do it against your account, do you want them to automatically turn off your stuff or do you want the bill that comes if they don't? That is precisely the choice people are asking for! And it doesn't have to be just those 2 options: let the user define their own trigger formulas for different levels of increase: a small one might result in a notification delayed until certain working hours on weekdays and log each visitors reported origin (referer header), a slightly larger one might result in a notification during awake hours regardless of weekday or workday, yet a further larger consumption increase may trigger an unconditional notification, yet a further one might trigger an unconditional notification that requires a timely confirmation by the user/organization, in the absence of which a soft measure could be taken like adding a small header to the page being served notifying visitors that while still functional a hug of death may be in progress, and asking the visitors to paste the URL of the page from where they clicked the link to your site (to make sure that a full URL can be consulted in case the host operators are unable to find the hyperlink that led to their site from merely the origin domain), yet another increase in traffic may be chosen to result in specifically rate limiting users from the originator domains that caused the peak, so that your regular visitors from the past can still make normal use of the page, and so on. Do freedom, choice, informed choice, preparedness mean something to you? We could have an open standard configuration textual machine readable file format for these choices and settings, so that people can share their settings, and the machine readable format could have <private> tags to wrap around phone numbers etc to notify, so that people can easily run a command line program or script that censors those exact values and replaces the first phone number like "<private><phone>(+32)474123456</phone></private>" with "<private><phone>generic phone number 1</phone></private>" and the second email address in the file like "<private><email>john.smith@nonprofit.org</email></private>" is replaced with "<private><email>generic.email@address.2</email></private>", so that people can easily export and share such files, possibly hosting it like robots.txt but say billing_policy.txt so people can inspect how others handle these situations so that popular consensus policies can form. Hosting, compute etc. services that allow users to configure such files and have them be executed by the hosting service will be more attractive than those which don't.

Eddy_Viscosity2 7mo ago

> I'm pretty sick of this reality where companies get to charge you whatever they want and it's designed to always be your fault But have you considered it from the companies POV? Charging whatever you like and its always the customers fault is a pretty sweet deal. Up next in the innovation pipeline is charging customers extra fees for something or other. It'll be great!

cwmoore 7mo ago
Healthy, even.
shimman 7mo ago
Why should I care about the companies POV? The company always wants to rat fuck everyone to make money. The company should be legally compelled to care about the customer because that's the only way these things change.
SoftTalker 7mo ago
This is just the utility model. It's nothing particularly nefarious. Consider what your electric utility, your water utility, etc. do. If you use more, you pay more. If someone comes around and hooks up a garden hose to your outside faucet and steals your water, or plugs an extension cord into your outside outlet and steals your electricity, you still pay. Unless you can catch the thief and make him pay.
- cool_dude85 7mo ago
  Funny enough, the utility business broadly wants to move away from this model to more of a cap-based prepaid model. Where I live, to get on the standard payment system may require a quite hefty deposit up front, but the prepaid payment option does not. I get the impression that, if not for customer sentiment and inertia, this would be the default option.

AnthonyMouse 7mo ago

You're configuring something that costs money (electricity, hardware, real estate) to provide. Either it's "pay as you go" or you have a flat rate and a cap. If you have a cap and then your thing hits the front page and suddenly has 10000% more legitimate traffic than usual, and you want the legitimate traffic, they're going to get an error page instead of what you want. If there is no cap, you're going to get a large bill. People hate both of those things and will complain regardless of which one actually happens. The main thing Google is screwing up here is not giving you the choice between them.

Nathanba 7mo ago
it's not an either or, they can easily let me configure any kind of behavior that I want. No cap, a hard cap, a soft cap, a cap that I program with a python script, a cap where I throttle, a cap where I opt in to deleting certain machines to save money. It can all be done. People are complaining because obvious features are not provided. People would not be complaining if they had all the options that we needed to control how to scale resources in response to load, not just technical load but also financial load.
- AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
  You can already do any of those things in your own code when making the API requests. The issue here is, if you unintentionally try to make a billion expensive requests or allow someone else to do it against your account, do you want them to automatically turn off your stuff or do you want the bill that comes if they don't?
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
    You seem to not comprehend the concept of informed choice. Upstream in the comments someone said they expect the EU might soon rule this type of billing illegal. That doesn't mean it becomes illegal, it just means yet another reaffirmation or reminder that - yes - this is indeed illegal. You said that no fixed response -whether that is allow unexpected billing to increase without limit upon a surge vs serving error pages- will be accepted by the clientele, because some want it one way and others want it the other way. Why would you force a single shoe size onto a population? Give them the choice. Whenever freedom of choice is violated in the name of market freedom, it is nearly always a violation of law, it's just a matter of hoping one lives in a jurisdiction that upholds its laws > The issue here is, if you unintentionally try to make a billion expensive requests or allow someone else to do it against your account, do you want them to automatically turn off your stuff or do you want the bill that comes if they don't? That is precisely the choice people are asking for! And it doesn't have to be just those 2 options: let the user define their own trigger formulas for different levels of increase: a small one might result in a notification delayed until certain working hours on weekdays and log each visitors reported origin (referer header), a slightly larger one might result in a notification during awake hours regardless of weekday or workday, yet a further larger consumption increase may trigger an unconditional notification, yet a further one might trigger an unconditional notification that requires a timely confirmation by the user/organization, in the absence of which a soft measure could be taken like adding a small header to the page being served notifying visitors that while still functional a hug of death may be in progress, and asking the visitors to paste the URL of the page from where they clicked the link to your site (to make sure that a full URL can be consulted in case the host operators are unable to find the hyperlink that led to their site from merely the origin domain), yet another increase in traffic may be chosen to result in specifically rate limiting users from the originator domains that caused the peak, so that your regular visitors from the past can still make normal use of the page, and so on. Do freedom, choice, informed choice, preparedness mean something to you? We could have an open standard configuration textual machine readable file format for these choices and settings, so that people can share their settings, and the machine readable format could have <private> tags to wrap around phone numbers etc to notify, so that people can easily run a command line program or script that censors those exact values and replaces the first phone number like "<private><phone>(+32)474123456</phone></private>" with "<private><phone>generic phone number 1</phone></private>" and the second email address in the file like "<private><email>john.smith@nonprofit.org</email></private>" is replaced with "<private><email>generic.email@address.2</email></private>", so that people can easily export and share such files, possibly hosting it like robots.txt but say billing_policy.txt so people can inspect how others handle these situations so that popular consensus policies can form. Hosting, compute etc. services that allow users to configure such files and have them be executed by the hosting service will be more attractive than those which don't.