[google-appengine] Re: Disappointed with free quota changes (probably not surprising)
b.j. Actually yours is exactly my point of view and I think that it's the point of many people. On Feb 26, 5:34 am, "B.J." wrote: > Agreed. As I said, "Shame on me." > > On Feb 25, 10:27 pm, Josh Cronemeyer > wrote: > > > I'm not saying you shouldn't be complainin, because lots of us were > > surprised by the new "official" quota numbers and the new accounting, but I > > will say that you certainly undertook a big risk by investing in a > > technology as new and raw as app engine. Given the limitations and concerns > > in your email I wouldn't have recommended you to set sail with the first > > group of settlers to the far shores of google's nacent cloud computing > > offering. Maybe you should have held off to see if we all got swallowed up > > by sea monsters. Good luck! > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM, B.J. wrote: > > > > I don't know that I have ever whined at an organization like Google > > > for trying to make money. > > > > That's changing with this message. > > > > By my calculations, it could cost me $1000 over the next year to host > > > my app that I had anticipated being hosted under the quotas. It may > > > cost me nothing right now our usage is just under the daily CPU > > > limits. If the traffic doesn't grow, no problem But whose goal is it > > > for an app not to get more usage? > > > > My only real gripe is that App Engine caused me to invest a lot of > > > effort in shoe-horning my app into the "Google Way". I did that with > > > the understanding that the trade-off was a certain amount of free > > > hosting. Was that a promise? Of course not. Is Google under any > > > obligation to meet my expectation? No. > > > > However, as I attempt to further optimize the application in an effort > > > to not exceed limits, the future of the application is now in > > > question. This is not a profit deal. I gave away my time in an > > > effort to help an organization. Had I known this change was coming, I > > > probably would have chosen a different solution. Because of the > > > "vendor lock-in" of App Engine, the end result of all this may be > > > simply turning the app off and letting the organization do without. > > > (or find someone else to help them out.) Better that than hit daily > > > free limits or find money out of someone's pocket. > > > > Look $1000/year is not a big deal for world-class hosting. I get it. > > > I also understand that the free quotas are only there to get people > > > "hooked" such as it were. I guess I wish had listened to those who > > > said, "Don't do App Engine. They'll lock you in and change the deal. > > > It's not portable enough." > > > > Shame on me, I guess. > > > > And before people chime in with all the, "You could always move it > > > to...", or "If you had just written it this way... " or "It's a > > > business, of course they're trying to get you to go over the limits.." > > > please don't. > > > > This is just a note to let the people at Google know there is a very > > > real cost to changing the deal on people. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: one more
of course they sould, specially to paying customers. I think that that kind of care and politeness is what they are paying for. My point is that looking in someones code is like breaking in your house. My code is my territory and I like to know when I am beeing spied (whatever the spie's good reason is). Otherwise if you consider that my code is as much my property as my car of my house I should have the right of choosing to be inspected or to have my app shutted down. (sorry for my english) On Apr 3, 8:22 pm, Xavier Mathews wrote: > Well We Are using Their SDK EtcAnd There Is A Privacy Policy On Content > storing and processing! If they have over 100 developers who codes > are causing problems to the system and causing instable then the easiest way > for them to fix it is to look at your code and fix it. You Are saying the > should come in contact with every one who's code is out of order and try > and communicate effectively to try and fix it. Google does not have the time > and that would just be to much confusion! As long as they do not tamper with > the code i see no problem of them looking at it! > > "Sent From Sony Slim-Line PSP" > > Xavier A. Mathews > Web-Developer > > Sent from Chicago, Illinois, United States > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Scott wrote: > > > I'm another developer with concerns about the privacy policy. > > > "Content. Google App Engine stores, processes your application source > > code and content in order to provide the service to you." > > > The fact that the above isn't even grammatically correct doesn't do > > much for my confidence. > > > Marzia - you mention that google employees might look at the code "if > > your application is causing system wide instability". Is that really > > necessary? Could you not just shut it down? If you were interested in > > determining how it caused instability in the face of controls you have > > put in place to prevent that situation, could you not work with the > > customer to e.g. isolate the problematic code so that you wouldn't > > have to get involved with the real application? Would you notify the > > customer and give them the opportunity to pull the code before you get > > involved with it? > > > I am curious about your answers, and I do believe in the good > > intentions of the app engine team and Google in general. But also, and > > as Colin said, it would be excellent to get that kind of clear > > language into the legal documents. Data privacy concerns are a major > > barrier to cloud adoption in business (for anyone with doubts, there's > > this great tool called Google Search you may want to try). The kind of > > clear language you've used here would really help to mitigate that > > issue, were it legally binding, or even prominently displayed (in the > > FAQ or similar). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: one more
And your car is on a public road, but it doesn't mean it 's public property, does it? The fact that google offers a hosting / cluster service don't give them authoring rights in any country I know. My bussiness is related with laws in my country and as far as I know it is here a crime to force someones code and the terms of the contract can be argued (judges say in that cases the last word) as abusive because in our laws, contractual terms who don't derivate in similar obligations for both parts are considered abusive. (in terms of my national law). In this case you are forced to give in exchange of a service that you are paying for (not everyone) open access to your code, in other words, you have to pay twice for the service: your money and your secrecy (to say somehow) Don not missunderstand me, I am not saying googles behaviour is illegal nor inmoral, I am saying that some people can get uneasy with that arbitrary power and that the terms of contract could be arguid with legal stuffs As far as my point of view is concerned, I am not saying google app is a bad service, I am only arguing about that particular business politics. Other factors are taken in consideration when you have to choose a hosting service, but sometimes that issue can be important (not my case at this moment, but pay attention to the statement at this moment). In general, I like very much google app engine. On Apr 4, 9:18 am, Xavier Mathews wrote: > Yea But Your Code Is Also On Google SystemSo That Makes It Therer! > The Are Only Goint To Give You So Much Privacy! > > On 04/04/2009, Portos wrote: > > > > > > > of course they sould, specially to paying customers. I think that that > > kind of care and politeness is what they are paying for. My point is > > that looking in someones code is like breaking in your house. My code > > is my territory and I like to know when I am beeing spied (whatever > > the spie's good reason is). Otherwise if you consider that my code is > > as much my property as my car of my house I should have the right of > > choosing to be inspected or to have my app shutted down. > > > (sorry for my english) > > > On Apr 3, 8:22 pm, Xavier Mathews wrote: > >> Well We Are using Their SDK EtcAnd There Is A Privacy Policy On > >> Content > >> storing and processing! If they have over 100 developers who codes > >> are causing problems to the system and causing instable then the easiest > >> way > >> for them to fix it is to look at your code and fix it. You Are saying the > >> should come in contact with every one who's code is out of order and try > >> and communicate effectively to try and fix it. Google does not have the > >> time > >> and that would just be to much confusion! As long as they do not tamper > >> with > >> the code i see no problem of them looking at it! > > >> "Sent From Sony Slim-Line PSP" > > >> Xavier A. Mathews > >> Web-Developer > > >> Sent from Chicago, Illinois, United States > > >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Scott wrote: > > >> > I'm another developer with concerns about the privacy policy. > > >> > "Content. Google App Engine stores, processes your application source > >> > code and content in order to provide the service to you." > > >> > The fact that the above isn't even grammatically correct doesn't do > >> > much for my confidence. > > >> > Marzia - you mention that google employees might look at the code "if > >> > your application is causing system wide instability". Is that really > >> > necessary? Could you not just shut it down? If you were interested in > >> > determining how it caused instability in the face of controls you have > >> > put in place to prevent that situation, could you not work with the > >> > customer to e.g. isolate the problematic code so that you wouldn't > >> > have to get involved with the real application? Would you notify the > >> > customer and give them the opportunity to pull the code before you get > >> > involved with it? > > >> > I am curious about your answers, and I do believe in the good > >> > intentions of the app engine team and Google in general. But also, and > >> > as Colin said, it would be excellent to get that kind of clear > >> > language into the legal documents. Data privacy concerns are a major > >> > barrier to cloud adoption in business (for anyone with doubts, there's > >> > this great tool called Google Search you may want t
[google-appengine] Re: Still no full-text search? Mystified by the priorities.
I agree 100% with this topic --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
