@Nickolas Daskalou +1 On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Nickolas Daskalou <n...@daskalou.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > Yet another "2nd 'next week' ending" has come and gone (for those playing at > home, that makes 4 weeks). > The application we had been working on has been halted in light of the new > pricing announcement, and we have been waiting for some good news for a > while now. Is there any update you can give us? > I feel your initial announcement was made a little prematurely, and by > greedy corporates with dollar signs in their eyes, who are not at all in > touch with the App Engine community. If they had been, they would have known > that a major selling point of App Engine was its "pay for what you use" > pricing model. > As has been mentioned earlier, the new proposed prices are almost absurd > when compared with other cloud computing providers. Even if App Engine > finally gets full multithreading support, an App Engine instance will still > cost over 10x that of an equivalent, less handicapped instance on Amazon > EC2. > Given the old (current?) pricing scheme, I think the logical thing would > have been to start charging users for RAM consumption (which has already > been mentioned in other threads). A "pay for what you use" hosting service > can indeed work, just take a look at NearlyFreeSpeech.net. > Due to the overhead of running a PaaS as opposed to an IaaS, App Engine > obviously cannot be as cheap as EC2, but a >10x price difference is > definitely not a true reflection of this overhead. In my opinion, doubling > the EC2 price to remove server administration headaches from developers > would be reasonable, but beyond that it may not make sense for a developer > to pay such a high premium when they can administer an EC2 stack themselves > with less restrictions than App Engine, and save a considerable amount of > money in the process. > Sticking to your guns with this new pricing scheme could be the beginning of > the end for App Engine. A company wishing to build the next big app can > easily play with the numbers and realise that if they get decent user > numbers in the future, the costs of App Engine would be astronomical > compared with other cloud computing providers. With more PaaS providers > coming into the market, and Google's reputation of being extremely price > competitive, the new pricing has definitely been a big shock for most of us. > On the other end of the scale, developers looking for a free ride to try out > their hobby app are given extremely generous quotas, both with the old and > new pricing models. If the need to support these developers has caused the > rest of App Engine to become expensive, then I recommend substantially > reducing the free quotas down to almost nothing (as a gesture of goodwill, > old apps should probably keep their old free quotas). App Engine has been > around long enough to have gained good exposure, and the free quotas have > played a part in that, but now that the word is out it may be time to become > more realistic with the amount of money lost to free riding apps. > On a personal note (and as someone else mentioned in this group), I am both > disappointed and embarrassed that I not only praised App Engine to other > developers, managers and stakeholders when it was an unproven technology, > but also that I have spent a considerable amount of time learning the system > and new design patterns, along with a substantial amount of time developing > on it. > If a large change is not made to the new proposed pricing, I daresay the > only developers and companies you will see using App Engine will be those > that have already committed a large amount of resources on their project, > and are too far in to be able to port across to a new system. All it then > takes to pull the rug out from under App Engine's feet is someone building a > commercial-grade, drop-in replacement for the App Engine stack, and charging > a lot less for it. > Nick > > On 6 June 2011 10:58, Gregory D'alesandre <gr...@google.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry it has taken so long, but we are still working on clarifying some of >> these areas internally, I will send an update soon, thanks for your >> patience... >> Greg >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Vanni Totaro <vanni.tot...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Greg, >>> 2nd "next week" ending :) >>> Any update for us? >>> Regards, >>> Vanni >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Google App Engine" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/alFhQ1RKWE1NWWtK. >>> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Google App Engine" group. >> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
