Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

Hey guys, just some data collection: are you guys running Python?

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM, joakime  wrote:

> We are moving 22 servers away.
> Already started the process to move to AWS.
> Our costs went up 2800% under the new pricing.
>
> --
> 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/-/yvS-RalUAasJ.
>
> 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

Jason,

I'm thinking a lot of the biggest apparent price increases come from the
fact that Python 2.5 instances are single threaded, whereas Python 2.7 with
multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to work
with you to make this happen.

The billing email queues should be working now, so I want to encourage you
especially to open a ticket via that email alias.

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Jason Collins wrote:

> We are going from $5,400/month to $26,500/month (Python) - and this is
> only one of our apps.
>
> We are going to work hard to optimize our application because we
> really like App Engine, but failing that, we may have to move
> elsewhere.
>
> j
>
> On Aug 31, 7:17 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)"  wrote:
> > Hey guys, just some data collection: are you guys running Python?
> >
> > --
> > Ikai Lan
> > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM, joakime 
> wrote:
> > > We are moving 22 servers away.
> > > Already started the process to move to AWS.
> > > Our costs went up 2800% under the new pricing.
> >
> > > --
> > > 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/-/yvS-RalUAasJ.
> >
> > > 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[milosh zorica]

am already mostly on AWS... using GAE just on side

AWS offers the best bangs for bucks ratio so far



On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Jason Collins
 wrote:
> We are going from $5,400/month to $26,500/month (Python) - and this is
> only one of our apps.
>
> We are going to work hard to optimize our application because we
> really like App Engine, but failing that, we may have to move
> elsewhere.
>
> j
>
> On Aug 31, 7:17 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)"  wrote:
>> Hey guys, just some data collection: are you guys running Python?
>>
>> --
>> Ikai Lan
>> Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
>> plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM, joakime  wrote:
>> > We are moving 22 servers away.
>> > Already started the process to move to AWS.
>> > Our costs went up 2800% under the new pricing.
>>
>> > --
>> > 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/-/yvS-RalUAasJ.
>>
>> > 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.
>
>



-- 
Milosh Zorica

http://www.linkedin.com/in/miloshzorica

phone: +44 20 8144 5294
e-mail: miloshzor...@gmail.com
skype: milosh.zorica

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Raymond C.]

I am.  Maybe check again when the new concurrency function come out.  But 
the new pricing is coming this month...

-- 
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/-/iEml_VxlE2YJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Srirangan]

>>  I did a double take when I realized the new price was per hundred
>> rather than per thousand,particularly when
>> channels expire after two hours and need to be re-created.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't this charge apply only after you exceed
your free quota or 8000 odd created channels per day?

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[joakime]

Using the Java SDK.
Our "Frontend Instance Hours" is where the lions share of change is coming 
from.
Of the rest of the resources, only "Datastore Storage" will see a change 
(increase of 64% in cost)

-- 
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/-/C_HA8NweRx8J.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Prashant]

I am a student. I love GAE because it provides enough free quota to try out
new ideas and run your app for free until you start making significant
amount of profit.

I have an XMPP based chat app. I need atleast 100,000 XMPP stanzas/day (just
to run my app without making any significant profit) which according to new
pricing scheme will cost me $3 per month but the minimum monthly is $9. Now
I am left with no other option but to shut my app down.

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Robert Kluin]

I've not had time to play with Python 2.7 to see how much threads help yet, but 
the scheduler needs work too.  I frequently see under 1 QPS / instance on low 
(sub 150ms) latency apps.  I may be way of the mark, but it seems like just 
getting that fixed would be a significant reduction in cost for us, and a 
better utilization of resources for Google. 





On Aug 31, 2011, at 20:44, "Ikai Lan (Google)"  wrote:

> Jason,
> 
> I'm thinking a lot of the biggest apparent price increases come from the fact 
> that Python 2.5 instances are single threaded, whereas Python 2.7 with 
> multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to work 
> with you to make this happen. 
> 
> The billing email queues should be working now, so I want to encourage you 
> especially to open a ticket via that email alias. 
> 
> --
> Ikai Lan 
> Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Jason Collins  
> wrote:
> We are going from $5,400/month to $26,500/month (Python) - and this is
> only one of our apps.
> 
> We are going to work hard to optimize our application because we
> really like App Engine, but failing that, we may have to move
> elsewhere.
> 
> j
> 
> On Aug 31, 7:17 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)"  wrote:
> > Hey guys, just some data collection: are you guys running Python?
> >
> > --
> > Ikai Lan
> > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM, joakime  wrote:
> > > We are moving 22 servers away.
> > > Already started the process to move to AWS.
> > > Our costs went up 2800% under the new pricing.
> >
> > > --
> > > 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/-/yvS-RalUAasJ.
> >
> > > 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Srirangan]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:49 AM, johnP  wrote:

> But Robert - you did not address the Root Question: why *should*
> Google dial back the revenue knob?
>

The mode of operation seems to be:

1. Attract users with free / very low cost, cloud infrastructure
2. Force them to use Google specific APIs aka lock them in
3. Drastically increase prices giving users only a couple of weeks notice
4. Since they're locked in, and can't migrate their app in a couple of
weeks, fleece them!

I do hope somebody from Google tells me that I am wrong! :-)

-- 
Srirangan  |  About   Blog
  GitHub 
LinkedIn
  Twitter 

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[de Witte]

Hi Ikai 

I seriously hope that you did some kind of research before throwing out the 
new pricing model. You should be able to get these charts from the datastore 
by analyzing your -current- customers.

Regardless, the pricing is still extreme for thread enabled Java apps, 
especially if you do a lot of writes. I have an increase of 0.01 to 1.70$, 
this is a simple form app to register customers for downloading a package. 
The same can be done on any php server for 5$ a month. These kind of prices 
are not a big concern but if our big app (under development) will cost us 
3000$ a month instead of 300$ then it is logical to move. 

BTW Your email API is costing us 2000$ a month to send newsletters,... I 
seriously hope it is a mistake to set it to $0.01 / 100. Use a technical 
solution to restrict spammers, not pricing!

-Wendel

-- 
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/-/mKW6j3kS8PkJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Pieter Coucke]

I know that 20 cents a day is peanuts, but an increase from $ 0.2 to $ 8 a
day for my app is just too high.

My app consists of bursts of messages in the queue that I want to be
processed as fast as possible.  I could just set the rate to 100/s and never
look back at it.  Now I need to disable my queue concurrency to avoid many
instances running.

Like others in this thread, I thought the new billing wouldn't be as bad as
expected.  I'm now trying java multi-threading again (hoping this issue is
magically fixed:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=4834) and see if
that helps (I still see 5 instances running now).

I use Java and moved from EC2 to App Engine so I wouldn't have to worry
about peaks and adding more servers (that was before Elastic Load Balancing
and Autoscaling was introduced).  Also, I didn't want to bother with OS
updates but want to focus on what I'm good at (development).  I'm willing to
pay more for that ease of mind.  For me the strong point of App Engine is
the ease of deploying/upgrading my apps.  EC2 provides better flexibility
for controlling scaling, cdn, messaging and even a scalable simpledb, but at
a much higher operational cost for me.  It's easier as a developer when the
App Engine team has already decided for me on which platform, database,
memcache, queue, ... to use.  The learning curve was sometimes steep
(transactions for entities with different parents) but I'll try to remember
this as a good way of learning to create scalable sites.

The strong point of app engine (I didn't have to care about the number of
servers which makes it a real cloud solution) has gone with the new pricing.
 EC2 micro instances are just $ 0.02 and give me 613 MB.  I already
refactored my site for App Engine so each server can die at any moment, so
why wouldn't I go to EC2 (simpledb, elasticache) now?

One of my clients asked me to create a (big) site on App Engine based on my
advocacy, I will probably need to rethink that decision.

Sorry for the hard work of the App Engine team, but I'm really disappointed
here.

(and apologies for the not so short answer)

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[nischalshetty]

$0.01/ 100 is the same as amazons simple email.. 

-- 
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/-/0ixCztODG5wJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Bay]

I spend _a lot_ of time optimizing my app for very, very low cpu usage. 

Now this effort matters very little, as the vast amount of usage cost now 
come from the fact that the instances are running - and not how heavy their 
use of the CPU is...

I have a very hard time understanding the logic behind all the articles 
about optimisation that you've posted over the past 3 years...

-- 
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/-/gRSQwIuH75cJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Rachel Gollub]

Same for me -- my main app (which is still in the testing and demoing phase)
is going from $.31/day (which was already too high for the very occasional
usage) to ~$2.50/day, and that's before it even has any users -- the
unpredictability of the costs on launch is a big problem.  It's in Java, and
all the costs are frontend instance costs.  I'm in the process of setting up
my first AWS account.  I've been recommending GAE to everyone and using it
for my apps for the last couple of years, but I'm going to have to do some
serious cost comparison before investing any more time or money in it.

I like GAE a lot, otherwise -- please, Google guys, reconsider and make this
more affordable?

-- Rachel

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Pieter Coucke wrote:

> I know that 20 cents a day is peanuts, but an increase from $ 0.2 to $ 8 a
> day for my app is just too high.
>
> My app consists of bursts of messages in the queue that I want to be
> processed as fast as possible.  I could just set the rate to 100/s and never
> look back at it.  Now I need to disable my queue concurrency to avoid many
> instances running.
>
> Like others in this thread, I thought the new billing wouldn't be as bad as
> expected.  I'm now trying java multi-threading again (hoping this issue is
> magically fixed:
> http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=4834) and see if
> that helps (I still see 5 instances running now).
>
> I use Java and moved from EC2 to App Engine so I wouldn't have to worry
> about peaks and adding more servers (that was before Elastic Load Balancing
> and Autoscaling was introduced).  Also, I didn't want to bother with OS
> updates but want to focus on what I'm good at (development).  I'm willing to
> pay more for that ease of mind.  For me the strong point of App Engine is
> the ease of deploying/upgrading my apps.  EC2 provides better flexibility
> for controlling scaling, cdn, messaging and even a scalable simpledb, but at
> a much higher operational cost for me.  It's easier as a developer when the
> App Engine team has already decided for me on which platform, database,
> memcache, queue, ... to use.  The learning curve was sometimes steep
> (transactions for entities with different parents) but I'll try to remember
> this as a good way of learning to create scalable sites.
>
> The strong point of app engine (I didn't have to care about the number of
> servers which makes it a real cloud solution) has gone with the new pricing.
>  EC2 micro instances are just $ 0.02 and give me 613 MB.  I already
> refactored my site for App Engine so each server can die at any moment, so
> why wouldn't I go to EC2 (simpledb, elasticache) now?
>
> One of my clients asked me to create a (big) site on App Engine based on my
> advocacy, I will probably need to rethink that decision.
>
> Sorry for the hard work of the App Engine team, but I'm really disappointed
> here.
>
> (and apologies for the not so short answer)
>
> --
> 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[thstart]

>*Python 2.7 with multiprocessing* will serve more computing per 
>instance.*We're going to work with you to make this happen. 
*
*
*
*I would like to modify my code right now. Do I need to tell you I am not 
happy in order to get access for more information?*
*
*
*--Constantine*
*
*

-- 
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/-/uNkdJ-2ZBP8J.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Wesley C (Google)]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Srirangan  wrote:

> The mode of operation seems to be:
>
> 1. Attract users with free / very low cost, cloud infrastructure
> 2. Force them to use Google specific APIs aka lock them in
> 3. Drastically increase prices giving users only a couple of weeks notice
> 4. Since they're locked in, and can't migrate their app in a couple of
> weeks, fleece them!
>
> I do hope somebody from Google tells me that I am wrong! :-)
>


we understand what users are feeling, but i think you're mistaken on some of
your points:

1. most Google products are free/low cost. App Engine was/is no
exception. it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a time for users
to "try before you buy." however, unlike a standard API, this is a
distributed application execution platform, which is not exactly a low-cost
service.

many users are comparing App Engine to EC2, but that is not an accurate
comparison... yes, both are fruits, but this is really apples vs. oranges.
with EC2, *you* have to not only worry about your app, but also *everything
else*, like elasticity/scale, operating system, database server, web server,
load balancer, licenses, patches/upgrades, etc. i would argue that
scalability is the most difficult and most expensive thing to build on your
own.

your app can be slashdotted or tweeted by demi moore --
http://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2010/10/mobile-app-creators-talk-google-app-engine.aspx--
or perhaps you may need to build/host something on the scale of both
the
royal wedding blog and event livestream with traffic numbers that are
mindblowing --
http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud.html...
*these* are the reasons for using App Engine. it was not meant as
free/cheap generic app-hosting but to provide a premium service that's
difficult to get elsewhere in the market. if you're just after the former,
there are plenty of options for you.

2. this is directly related to #1. the company has spent many years and $$$
to build infrastructure that is "Google-scale," whatever you think that
means, and you should have an idea. we've built a system that lets you
leverage all the research and horsepower, but because it's all hand-built,
you need to use our APIs to take advantage of it! after all, you can't get
something for nothing, or can you? perhaps you *can*, if you're developing a
Django app using Python.

the Django web framework traditionally relies on a SQL/relational DB, but
the django-nonrel project -- http://allbuttonspressed.com -- enables Django
apps to run on NoSQL/non-relational databases, including MongoDB and App
Engine. (ports to Cassandra, Redis, SimpleDB, etc., are also underway.) what
this means is that you can write a traditional Django app but can choose
*where* you want to run it, whether it be on App Engine, or via traditional
hosting (SQL or non). "lock-in" doesn't exist if you can move your app (and
data) to/from App Engine any time you wish with just a change of your
settings.py file! i've even written an article to help you port your app
from webapp to Django if you wish --
http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/django-nonrel.html

that's on the client side as both the App Engine SDK as well as Django are
both open sourced. if you wish to run you own App Engine-like *backend*
compatible with the App Engine SDK & API, you can take a look at the
TyphoonAE -- http://code.google.com/p/typhoonae -- and AppScale --
http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu -- projects. Google welcomes/supports such
server-side projects -- http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/sponsors.html -- even if
we can't release our proprietary backend. in fact, one of the AppScale team
members has written about the project --
http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2010/10/research-project-appscale-at-university.html--
and has interned here at Google!

3. the price changes are a reflection of certain key facts:

a. Google as a company backing the entire platform as a product... instead
of being cancelled, we're coming out of preview mode and become an official
product! Google is not a non-profit company and cannot continue to operate
services at a loss. our products, and my paycheck's gotta come from
*some*where! coming out of preview means Google is committed to App Engine,
and in turn, we're committed to our users.

b. this service costs the company significant resources... premium services
like App Engine and YouTube require a lot of hardware and networking
bandwidth. We serve more than 1.5 *billion* pages views a day across all
applications!

c. we're adding an SLA and paid support --
http://code.google.com/appengine/sla.html plus a business-oriented ToS --
http://code.google.com/appengine/updated_terms.html -- with updates like
alternative billing options. These help prove to enterprise that we mean
business and provide a strongly-desired comfort level from larger customers.

d. most importantly, these changes were announced publicly during the second
week of May during Google I/

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Angke Chen]

If all you said is true, then why the billing in the preview was so
cheap for 3 years?

BAIT AND SWITCH I call.

Angke

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Wesley C (Google)  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Srirangan  wrote:
>>
>> The mode of operation seems to be:
>> 1. Attract users with free / very low cost, cloud infrastructure
>> 2. Force them to use Google specific APIs aka lock them in
>> 3. Drastically increase prices giving users only a couple of weeks notice
>> 4. Since they're locked in, and can't migrate their app in a couple of
>> weeks, fleece them!
>> I do hope somebody from Google tells me that I am wrong! :-)
>
> we understand what users are feeling, but i think you're mistaken on some of
> your points:
> 1. most Google products are free/low cost. App Engine was/is no
> exception. it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a time for users
> to "try before you buy." however, unlike a standard API, this is a
> distributed application execution platform, which is not exactly a low-cost
> service.
> many users are comparing App Engine to EC2, but that is not an accurate
> comparison... yes, both are fruits, but this is really apples vs. oranges.
> with EC2, *you* have to not only worry about your app, but also *everything
> else*, like elasticity/scale, operating system, database server, web server,
> load balancer, licenses, patches/upgrades, etc. i would argue that
> scalability is the most difficult and most expensive thing to build on your
> own.
> your app can be slashdotted or tweeted by demi moore
> -- http://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2010/10/mobile-app-creators-talk-google-app-engine.aspx
> -- or perhaps you may need to build/host something on the scale of both the
> royal wedding blog and event livestream with traffic numbers that are
> mindblowing
> -- http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud.html
> ... *these* are the reasons for using App Engine. it was not meant as
> free/cheap generic app-hosting but to provide a premium service that's
> difficult to get elsewhere in the market. if you're just after the former,
> there are plenty of options for you.
> 2. this is directly related to #1. the company has spent many years and $$$
> to build infrastructure that is "Google-scale," whatever you think that
> means, and you should have an idea. we've built a system that lets you
> leverage all the research and horsepower, but because it's all hand-built,
> you need to use our APIs to take advantage of it! after all, you can't get
> something for nothing, or can you? perhaps you *can*, if you're developing a
> Django app using Python.
> the Django web framework traditionally relies on a SQL/relational DB, but
> the django-nonrel project -- http://allbuttonspressed.com -- enables Django
> apps to run on NoSQL/non-relational databases, including MongoDB and App
> Engine. (ports to Cassandra, Redis, SimpleDB, etc., are also underway.) what
> this means is that you can write a traditional Django app but can choose
> *where* you want to run it, whether it be on App Engine, or via traditional
> hosting (SQL or non). "lock-in" doesn't exist if you can move your app (and
> data) to/from App Engine any time you wish with just a change of your
> settings.py file! i've even written an article to help you port your app
> from webapp to Django if you wish
> -- http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/django-nonrel.html
> that's on the client side as both the App Engine SDK as well as Django are
> both open sourced. if you wish to run you own App Engine-like *backend*
> compatible with the App Engine SDK & API, you can take a look at the
> TyphoonAE -- http://code.google.com/p/typhoonae -- and AppScale --
> http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu -- projects. Google welcomes/supports such
> server-side projects -- http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/sponsors.html -- even if
> we can't release our proprietary backend. in fact, one of the AppScale team
> members has written about the project --
> http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2010/10/research-project-appscale-at-university.html
> -- and has interned here at Google!
> 3. the price changes are a reflection of certain key facts:
> a. Google as a company backing the entire platform as a product... instead
> of being cancelled, we're coming out of preview mode and become an official
> product! Google is not a non-profit company and cannot continue to operate
> services at a loss. our products, and my paycheck's gotta come from
> *some*where! coming out of preview means Google is committed to App Engine,
> and in turn, we're committed to our users.
> b. this service costs the company significant resources... premium services
> like App Engine and YouTube require a lot of hardware and networking
> bandwidth. We serve more than 1.5 *billion* pages views a day across all
> applications!
> c. we're adding an SLA and paid support --
> http://code.google.com/appengine/sla.html plus a business-oriented ToS --
> http://code.google.co

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Wesley C (Google)]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Wesley C (Google) wrote:
>
>
> 1. most Google products are free/low cost. App Engine was/is no
> exception. it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a time for users
> to "try before you buy." however, unlike a standard API, this is a
> distributed application execution platform, which is not exactly a low-cost
> service.
>
> many users are comparing App Engine to EC2, but that is not an accurate
> comparison... yes, both are fruits, but this is really apples vs. oranges.
> with EC2, *you* have to not only worry about your app, but also *everything
> else*, like elasticity/scale, operating system, database server, web server,
> load balancer, licenses, patches/upgrades, etc. i would argue that
> scalability is the most difficult and most expensive thing to build on your
> own.
>

here's a perhaps less-based comparison arguing a similar point:
http://groups.google.com/group/objectify-appengine/msg/807b35bfe098ce2c

-- wesley
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Core Python Programming", Prentice Hall, (c)2007,2001
"Python Fundamentals", Prentice Hall, (c)2009
   http://corepython.com

wesley.chun : wesc+api at google.com : @wescpy
developer relations :: google cloud products

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Wesley C (Google)]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Angke Chen  wrote:

> If all you said is true, then why the billing in the preview was so
> cheap for 3 years?
>
> BAIT AND SWITCH I call.



it usually takes awhile for a product to bake before realizing that it is
indeed viable to the market. we couldn't make it *completely* free, so a
pay-as-you-go method worked well for Google and App Engine users alike. we
also wanted to continue to attract users to platform. as i already mentioned
in my previous message: "it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a
time for users to "try before you buy."

3 years isn't unreasonable for a preview period, and since we launched,
we've kept on making improvements and adding new features to the platform --
new releases about every 6-10 weeks! yes, there have been a few small bumps
along the way, but this is the way of the cloud. we're continuing to make
the platform better for users, and hopefully some of you will see that it's
still a worthwhile endeavor!

best regards,
-- wesley
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Core Python Programming", Prentice Hall, (c)2007,2001
"Python Fundamentals", Prentice Hall, (c)2009
   http://corepython.com

wesley.chun : wesc+api at google.com : @wescpy
developer relations :: google cloud products

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Will]

I understand what GAE team may be feeling after reading some very
harsh comments. My comments are:

1. I don't know how many in this discussion group believe Google is a
non-profit organization. My guess is none. I want to pay for GAE, and
I've been paying for more than a year, the recent monthly bills are
about 120$. Not particularly cheap, but I am happy because I believe
it is a very reasonable price.

2. If GAE is a premium service intending for serious business uses,
then say so at the very beginning. GAE was presented as a very cheap
(yet technically advanced with many advantages) clouding platform at
the beginning. If Google realizes it is a mistake, it should do
something more reasonable than this, especially to existing paying
customers. Maybe Amazon is as expensive as the new pricing model, but
I won't complain, because they state their prices very clearly
upfront, without 3 years of 'previewing'.

Will

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Wesley C (Google)  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Srirangan  wrote:
>>
>> The mode of operation seems to be:
>> 1. Attract users with free / very low cost, cloud infrastructure
>> 2. Force them to use Google specific APIs aka lock them in
>> 3. Drastically increase prices giving users only a couple of weeks notice
>> 4. Since they're locked in, and can't migrate their app in a couple of
>> weeks, fleece them!
>> I do hope somebody from Google tells me that I am wrong! :-)
>
> we understand what users are feeling, but i think you're mistaken on some of
> your points:
> 1. most Google products are free/low cost. App Engine was/is no
> exception. it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a time for users
> to "try before you buy." however, unlike a standard API, this is a
> distributed application execution platform, which is not exactly a low-cost
> service.
> many users are comparing App Engine to EC2, but that is not an accurate
> comparison... yes, both are fruits, but this is really apples vs. oranges.
> with EC2, *you* have to not only worry about your app, but also *everything
> else*, like elasticity/scale, operating system, database server, web server,
> load balancer, licenses, patches/upgrades, etc. i would argue that
> scalability is the most difficult and most expensive thing to build on your
> own.
> your app can be slashdotted or tweeted by demi moore
> -- http://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2010/10/mobile-app-creators-talk-google-app-engine.aspx
> -- or perhaps you may need to build/host something on the scale of both the
> royal wedding blog and event livestream with traffic numbers that are
> mindblowing
> -- http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud.html
> ... *these* are the reasons for using App Engine. it was not meant as
> free/cheap generic app-hosting but to provide a premium service that's
> difficult to get elsewhere in the market. if you're just after the former,
> there are plenty of options for you.
> 2. this is directly related to #1. the company has spent many years and $$$
> to build infrastructure that is "Google-scale," whatever you think that
> means, and you should have an idea. we've built a system that lets you
> leverage all the research and horsepower, but because it's all hand-built,
> you need to use our APIs to take advantage of it! after all, you can't get
> something for nothing, or can you? perhaps you *can*, if you're developing a
> Django app using Python.
> the Django web framework traditionally relies on a SQL/relational DB, but
> the django-nonrel project -- http://allbuttonspressed.com -- enables Django
> apps to run on NoSQL/non-relational databases, including MongoDB and App
> Engine. (ports to Cassandra, Redis, SimpleDB, etc., are also underway.) what
> this means is that you can write a traditional Django app but can choose
> *where* you want to run it, whether it be on App Engine, or via traditional
> hosting (SQL or non). "lock-in" doesn't exist if you can move your app (and
> data) to/from App Engine any time you wish with just a change of your
> settings.py file! i've even written an article to help you port your app
> from webapp to Django if you wish
> -- http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/django-nonrel.html
> that's on the client side as both the App Engine SDK as well as Django are
> both open sourced. if you wish to run you own App Engine-like *backend*
> compatible with the App Engine SDK & API, you can take a look at the
> TyphoonAE -- http://code.google.com/p/typhoonae -- and AppScale --
> http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu -- projects. Google welcomes/supports such
> server-side projects -- http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/sponsors.html -- even if
> we can't release our proprietary backend. in fact, one of the AppScale team
> members has written about the project --
> http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2010/10/research-project-appscale-at-university.html
> -- and has interned here at Google!
> 3. the price changes are a reflection of certain key facts:
>

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Raymond C.]

I think Google's stance has been quite clear after all the posts from 
Google's employees: GAE is now targeting enterprise only, i.e. companies 
that have plenty of money to spend on hosting web apps without the need to 
make money through itself, because their main revenue stream is from else 
where.  (tell me how royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud can make a turnover from 
its insane cost)

If you are a startup or companies that are planning to make a business by 
hosting an your applications on GAE, you are doing it WRONG. 


But then I wonder, which company is so stupid that having so much money to 
spend on hosting web apps on GAE, but dont bother to spend a tiny portion of 
it to hire a system admin to host applications on AWS given that it is:
- not locked in
- you are having all the controls
- you can use whatever you want
- you can do whatever you like (socket on GAE? long polling? event based 
server? push notification to iOS?)
- you know the price will only go down by time
- its a much larger community

-- 
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/-/PROOuP80TvcJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Will]

3 years 'preview' is rare and unreasonable in my opinion. If you are
not certain about the usage patterns and price model etc, you can do a
closed beta with selected customers. 3 years of experiment with this
public massive scale on real commercial products and serious paying
customers, I've never heard of, let alone a price increase with this
magnitude in the end.

Best,

Will

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Wesley C (Google)  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Angke Chen  wrote:
>>
>> If all you said is true, then why the billing in the preview was so
>> cheap for 3 years?
>>
>> BAIT AND SWITCH I call.
>
>
> it usually takes awhile for a product to bake before realizing that it is
> indeed viable to the market. we couldn't make it *completely* free, so a
> pay-as-you-go method worked well for Google and App Engine users alike. we
> also wanted to continue to attract users to platform. as i already mentioned
> in my previous message: "it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a
> time for users to "try before you buy."
> 3 years isn't unreasonable for a preview period, and since we launched,
> we've kept on making improvements and adding new features to the platform --
> new releases about every 6-10 weeks! yes, there have been a few small bumps
> along the way, but this is the way of the cloud. we're continuing to make
> the platform better for users, and hopefully some of you will see that it's
> still a worthwhile endeavor!
> best regards,
> -- wesley
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "Core Python Programming", Prentice Hall, (c)2007,2001
> "Python Fundamentals", Prentice Hall, (c)2009
>    http://corepython.com
>
> wesley.chun : wesc+api at google.com : @wescpy
> developer relations :: google cloud products
>
> --
> 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[scott]

This is a real bummer. I hear what you are saying and I see where Google is 
trying to take this, but I wonder how much adoption is going to suffer now 
that they have to compete with other similar service offerings at a similar 
price point. Even with all the good that comes with appengine, will new 
developers be willing to take on all of the GAE proprietary technologies and 
idiosyncrasies. Does Google have enough penetration in the app hosting 
market that they think this isn't an issue? 

After reading all of these comments, it feels like Google lost a little bit 
of cool today. It probably didn't help that developers were only given a 
couple of weeks to fully understand the impact and to react. There's a lot 
of panic on this forum.

-- 
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/-/i6PtXMuya0sJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Tim Hoffman]

Hi Raymond

You will need more than a single sysadmin to make a system scalable enough 
on AWS
to deal with a royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud and even on AWS it will cost you 
a lot.

Not defending in anyway price changes, but you are seriously over 
simplifying what is required to build 
a large scalable system.

T

-- 
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/-/Cn8aXDNtmsUJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Sergey Schetinin]

While I agree that some people do compare apples to oranges here, I
cannot accept your claim that such changes in pricing were to be
expected. There's no precedent for a change in pricing model like
that, and consider this: Gmail was in beta for a very long time and no
doubt is a losing article for Google, but would anyone even consider
to start charging a penny for every email once it was leaving beta?
(But hey, 5 free emails per day!) How would seemingly valid arguments
about developer salaries and sustainability and data portability hold
then?

I understand that the change needed to happen, but it was handled by
putting developers completely out of control and trying to blow it off
as not a big deal, "you were asking for this!" and all that. It should
have been done differently, you know it should have.

-Sergey

-- 
http://self.maluke.com/



On 2 September 2011 01:33, Wesley C (Google)  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Srirangan  wrote:
>>
>> The mode of operation seems to be:
>> 1. Attract users with free / very low cost, cloud infrastructure
>> 2. Force them to use Google specific APIs aka lock them in
>> 3. Drastically increase prices giving users only a couple of weeks notice
>> 4. Since they're locked in, and can't migrate their app in a couple of
>> weeks, fleece them!
>> I do hope somebody from Google tells me that I am wrong! :-)
>
> we understand what users are feeling, but i think you're mistaken on some of
> your points:
> 1. most Google products are free/low cost. App Engine was/is no
> exception. it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a time for users
> to "try before you buy." however, unlike a standard API, this is a
> distributed application execution platform, which is not exactly a low-cost
> service.
> many users are comparing App Engine to EC2, but that is not an accurate
> comparison... yes, both are fruits, but this is really apples vs. oranges.
> with EC2, *you* have to not only worry about your app, but also *everything
> else*, like elasticity/scale, operating system, database server, web server,
> load balancer, licenses, patches/upgrades, etc. i would argue that
> scalability is the most difficult and most expensive thing to build on your
> own.
> your app can be slashdotted or tweeted by demi moore
> -- http://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2010/10/mobile-app-creators-talk-google-app-engine.aspx
> -- or perhaps you may need to build/host something on the scale of both the
> royal wedding blog and event livestream with traffic numbers that are
> mindblowing
> -- http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud.html
> ... *these* are the reasons for using App Engine. it was not meant as
> free/cheap generic app-hosting but to provide a premium service that's
> difficult to get elsewhere in the market. if you're just after the former,
> there are plenty of options for you.
> 2. this is directly related to #1. the company has spent many years and $$$
> to build infrastructure that is "Google-scale," whatever you think that
> means, and you should have an idea. we've built a system that lets you
> leverage all the research and horsepower, but because it's all hand-built,
> you need to use our APIs to take advantage of it! after all, you can't get
> something for nothing, or can you? perhaps you *can*, if you're developing a
> Django app using Python.
> the Django web framework traditionally relies on a SQL/relational DB, but
> the django-nonrel project -- http://allbuttonspressed.com -- enables Django
> apps to run on NoSQL/non-relational databases, including MongoDB and App
> Engine. (ports to Cassandra, Redis, SimpleDB, etc., are also underway.) what
> this means is that you can write a traditional Django app but can choose
> *where* you want to run it, whether it be on App Engine, or via traditional
> hosting (SQL or non). "lock-in" doesn't exist if you can move your app (and
> data) to/from App Engine any time you wish with just a change of your
> settings.py file! i've even written an article to help you port your app
> from webapp to Django if you wish
> -- http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/django-nonrel.html
> that's on the client side as both the App Engine SDK as well as Django are
> both open sourced. if you wish to run you own App Engine-like *backend*
> compatible with the App Engine SDK & API, you can take a look at the
> TyphoonAE -- http://code.google.com/p/typhoonae -- and AppScale --
> http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu -- projects. Google welcomes/supports such
> server-side projects -- http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/sponsors.html -- even if
> we can't release our proprietary backend. in fact, one of the AppScale team
> members has written about the project --
> http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2010/10/research-project-appscale-at-university.html
> -- and has interned here at Google!
> 3. the price changes are a reflection of certain key facts:
> a. Google as a company backing the entire platform as a product... instea

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Raymond C.]

I know scaling has traditionally been not an easy task, but it is a lot 
easier on IAAS because not only you can scale out with just a few click, but 
you can also scale up using a powerful instance type.  I know quite a number 
of local small companies in person that are doing great business on AWS in 
terms of scaling with just a few powerful EC2 instances, that the price is 
much more effective than running on GAE because each EC2 instance can do a 
lot of things.

GAE was designed to only scale out to support a large number of users, which 
each instance can do very little thing (e.g. one process per instance at a 
time).  Thats why the original pricing model make sense because we dont have 
to care how GAE run our code.

Maybe listen to the guys from stackoverflow talk about scaling up is more 
convincing:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/12/my-scaling-hero.html
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/06/scaling-up-vs-scaling-out-hidden-costs.html

-- 
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/-/OifP-yyICyIJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Vinuth Madinur]

I'm sorry. What we tried is not exactly what we are going to be buying.
Nobody had a clue what the real prices would look like and earlier
speculations were shot down as ridiculous projections.

What we tried was a platform where I dont have to worry about Instances and
tuning the scheduler for costs. Tell me with a straight face that this is
the same platform.

Announcing it in May and taking 2 months to make a FAQ and still managing to
keep everyone guessing isn't exactly preparing everyone for it.

People repeatedly asked if GAE now wants to go enterprise only. There was no
response. Now you lash out against them saying it's common sense.

People are still pointing out bugs with scheduler, and everyone has 2 weeks
time after looking at their prices. And SLA only for HR apps. Single
threaded Python runtime. Haha.

You should have written this mail back in May.


On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Wesley C (Google) wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Angke Chen  wrote:
>
> If all you said is true, then why the billing in the preview was so
>> cheap for 3 years?
>>
>> BAIT AND SWITCH I call.
>
>
>
> it usually takes awhile for a product to bake before realizing that it is
> indeed viable to the market. we couldn't make it *completely* free, so a
> pay-as-you-go method worked well for Google and App Engine users alike. we
> also wanted to continue to attract users to platform. as i already mentioned
> in my previous message: "it was/is also in it's beta or preview period...
> a time for users to "try before you buy."
>
> 3 years isn't unreasonable for a preview period, and since we launched,
> we've kept on making improvements and adding new features to the platform --
> new releases about every 6-10 weeks! yes, there have been a few small bumps
> along the way, but this is the way of the cloud. we're continuing to make
> the platform better for users, and hopefully some of you will see that it's
> still a worthwhile endeavor!
>
> best regards,
> -- wesley
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "Core Python Programming", Prentice Hall, (c)2007,2001
> "Python Fundamentals", Prentice Hall, (c)2009
>http://corepython.com
>
> wesley.chun : wesc+api at google.com : @wescpy
> developer relations :: google cloud products
>
>  --
> 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Rajkumar Radhakrishnan]

Hi Google Folks,

For all these years, you had a Why App
Engine page
which lists the 2nd point as..

 *Free and Risk-free Development*
> Not only is creating an App Engine application easy, it's free! You can
> create an account and publish an application that people can use right away
> at no charge, and with no obligation. When you need to use more resources,
> you can enable billing and allocate your budget according to your needs.
> Detailed pricing for usage that has exceeded the free quota on our Billing
> page .


And in the billing page which is linked-to in that reason, CPU hours based
billing was highlighted. While our apps were built for and optimized to work
efficient on the platform for the given pricing, Google now changed the
rules of the game because Google was not able to predict that the old model
is unsustainable for nearly 3 years. After 3 years you realized that
instance based pricing (actually, process-based) is the way to go.

While Google had earlier mentioned that the rates will increase only
nominally and not multiple folds, you now say that Google App Engine is not
meant to be an affordable and generic app hosting platform but is supposed
to be a premium service (*highlight added by me*)...

your app can be slashdotted or tweeted by demi moore... or perhaps you
> may need to build/host something on the scale of both the royal wedding blog
> and event livestream with traffic numbers that are mindblowing . *these*
> are the reasons for using App Engine. *it was not meant as free/cheap
> generic app-hosting but to provide a premium service* that's difficult to
> get elsewhere in the market. if you're just after the former, there are
> plenty of options for you.


Sad to know that Google have used early adopters as testing resources for
the "premium" platform.

I will not be leaving the platform.. I love the engineering effort Google
has put into this. Just sad that I cannot make my app accessible for users
looking for affordable database apps. I will have to look for a new domain
name for my custom online database app
builderover Google App Engine,
"iFreeTools Creator" --> "iPremiumTools Creator"
probably !!

And for those looking for more affordable options, I will have to look into
one of the "plenty of options", for hosting their database applications.

Thanks & Regards,
R.Rajkumar


On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Vinuth Madinur wrote:

> I'm sorry. What we tried is not exactly what we are going to be buying.
> Nobody had a clue what the real prices would look like and earlier
> speculations were shot down as ridiculous projections.
>
> What we tried was a platform where I dont have to worry about Instances and
> tuning the scheduler for costs. Tell me with a straight face that this is
> the same platform.
>
> Announcing it in May and taking 2 months to make a FAQ and still managing
> to keep everyone guessing isn't exactly preparing everyone for it.
>
> People repeatedly asked if GAE now wants to go enterprise only. There was
> no response. Now you lash out against them saying it's common sense.
>
> People are still pointing out bugs with scheduler, and everyone has 2 weeks
> time after looking at their prices. And SLA only for HR apps. Single
> threaded Python runtime. Haha.
>
> You should have written this mail back in May.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Wesley C (Google) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Angke Chen  wrote:
>>
>> If all you said is true, then why the billing in the preview was so
>>> cheap for 3 years?
>>>
>>> BAIT AND SWITCH I call.
>>
>>
>>
>> it usually takes awhile for a product to bake before realizing that it is
>> indeed viable to the market. we couldn't make it *completely* free, so a
>> pay-as-you-go method worked well for Google and App Engine users alike. we
>> also wanted to continue to attract users to platform. as i already mentioned
>> in my previous message: "it was/is also in it's beta or preview period...
>> a time for users to "try before you buy."
>>
>> 3 years isn't unreasonable for a preview period, and since we launched,
>> we've kept on making improvements and adding new features to the platform --
>> new releases about every 6-10 weeks! yes, there have been a few small bumps
>> along the way, but this is the way of the cloud. we're continuing to make
>> the platform better for users, and hopefully some of you will see that it's
>> still a worthwhile endeavor!
>>
>> best regards,
>> -- wesley
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> "Core Python Programming", Prentice Hall, (c)2007,2001
>> "Python Fundamentals", Prentice Hall, (c)2009
>>http://corepython.com
>>
>> wesley.chun : wesc+api at google.com : @wescpy
>> developer relations :: google cloud products
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Go

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Pieter Coucke]

To be fair to the App Engine team: I tried concurrency again and the issue
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=4834 seems fixed
to me.  I was able to reduce my instances from 8 to 1 (sometimes 2) which
will certainly reduce my bill *a lot*.  I can live with the price of one or
two instances.

Only thing I see when I set the "max idle instances" slider to 1 (the lowest
possible value), I see one instance serving all requests and one instance
remaining idle without any requests.  I thought I could put the max idle
instances to 0, but that option is not available.  When I set the slider to
automatic, I have the impression I see less unused (I mean instances with
one or two requests) instances popping up.  Maybe I should set the delay
slider a bit higher than one second for this.

Taking into account the administrative overhead of EC2, I will remain on App
Engine at the moment, although I hope prices for (small) App Engine
instances will drop in the near future.

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Tim Hoffman]

Just look at the stack in that example you posted.  It is a non trivial 
excercise and this guys has gone in deep.
How many people are willing too or can..

And it doesn't talk about how robust it is.  Its not a lot of fun performing 
rolling upgrades of cluster of 
rdbms backends whilst keeping everything up. How you do can be very 
dependant on the application structure

It takes training, and resources.  Yep it's a lot easier if you can fling 
virtual machines (ec2, vmware etc) around the 
place, but it does require careful design.  

The article doesn't say how many years it took to get it right, or what sort 
of failure rates he encountered during the early years.

Rgds

Tim

-- 
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/-/N97akI-LxZQJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Joshua Smith]

If I were in your position, I'd send all your users an email explaining what 
you just told us in this message.  Heck, just use that message -- it was really 
well written.

Then let them decide what's next.  Set up a google docs survey.  You might be 
able to switch to a donation model, or a freemium model of some type.  Or even 
just increase the price of your app by $1 and require them to go buy the new 
version to keep playing.

I had a game company with a massively multiplayer social shoot-em-up game back 
in the 1990s.  We eventually figured out that we couldn't make the business end 
of it work, so we shut it down.  The players eventually took over operation of 
the game, and it's still alive today.  Engaged networks of people can really 
surprise you.

Good luck!

-Joshua

On Sep 2, 2011, at 11:15 AM, polyclefsoftware wrote:

> I'm going to get a lot of angry emails, and since I publish a substantial 
> catalog of other apps and games, this will likely hurt my reputation and 
> potentially impact revenue across the board, but what else am I supposed to 
> do?

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Robert Kluin]

Wow, this is very well written.  You should make this a blog / G+ /
whatever post.

I also agree that it is quite funny, at IO they were touting Android +
GAE.  From what I've seen apps with many lightweight requests are
getting killed with the new pricing; apps with super heavy requests
are seeing more modest 2 or 3x increases.  Basically exactly the
opposite of what GAE used to be good for.



Robert



On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:15, polyclefsoftware  wrote:
> I'm an indie Android app developer, and in early 2010 I decided to work on a
> multiplayer crossword board game ala Scrabble or Words With Friends, since
> no such game existed yet on the platform. I worked with a friend who handled
> the server side. We decided it would be cool to use Java GAE as the back end
> for the game. The app, called WordWise, was the first game of its type to
> the Android Market. We also developed an iPhone version and were the first
> iPhone-Android cross-platform game of this type to market. For about a year,
> the game did reasonably well financially. Not WWF success, but enough to
> help me continue to work as an indie app developer.
> In February of this year, Words With Friends released their Android version
> and our revenue cratered. We use a mixed model of free with ads (including
> Google AdSense/AdMob) and paid. Revenue dropped off a cliff in February, but
> were still eked out a modest profit from the game. Under the current GAE
> pricing scheme, our server costs are $30-50/mo. The app now generates about
> $150/mo. in revenue. At its peak it was generating thousands of dollars per
> month in revenue, but those days are gone.
> However, we still have a dedicated user base. The app still has over 200K
> active installs. Under the new GAE pricing scheme, our server costs are
> going up about 7x. Right now we're essentially breaking even, but
> maintaining the environment for current users who continue to enjoy playing
> the game. Under the new scheme, we're going to have to shut everything down.
> We can break even, but we can't run at a loss. Under the new scheme we'd be
> paying $200-300/mo. in fees, while the app only generates about half that in
> revenue.
> I'm going to get a lot of angry emails, and since I publish a substantial
> catalog of other apps and games, this will likely hurt my reputation and
> potentially impact revenue across the board, but what else am I supposed to
> do?
> I've been a huge advocate of Google and its products. One of the reasons we
> chose GAE, despite its quirks, was that it seemed like a perfect fit with
> indie Android gaming. Every Android phone requires a Google account, which
> could be used for authentication to the GAE server. This policy change by
> Google is effectively killing our game and nullifying any chances of us
> using it in the future. Despite the announcement at I/O, I still perceived
> GAE as a platform suitable for a wide range of developers, from indies like
> me up to large-scale businesses. It's very clear now that's not the case.
> I've always had a perception that Google cared about the indie developer
> community, but I'm honestly baffled by this move.
> Yes, Google is a for-profit company, but since their inception, their
> strategy has often been to offer great free products, initially at as
> loss-leaders, to encourage adoption. They are then able to integrate their
> core business, advertising, into those products, and upsell premium versions
> for enterprise. Are Google reps seriously suggesting that new products such
> as Google+ are generating direct revenue right now? By pricing out
> hobbyists, indies, and other small companies from GAE, the initial revenue
> lost will likely not even be noticed by Google. However, you will have lost
> an enormous amount of good will and street cred among the developer
> community.
> You could have handled this in a much more sensible way. Why not grandfather
> in apps under the old pricing platform that have been on the platform for
> something like at least six months? You're citing apps that have enormous
> traffic, but what this new policy is going to do is effectively squash a
> bunch of smaller apps. Why not keep apps under the old pricing scheme if
> they qualify as "non-enterprise", with moderate-to-low usage? You're telling
> me Google wouldn't be willing to absorb the negligible cost of providing
> infrastructure to smaller projects in order to encourage adoption and
> continue to foster good will among the dev community? And you could still
> hike up the costs on the big apps, though something tells me even that's
> going to backfire.
> As someone else said, Google lost a lot of cool over this.
>
> --
> 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/-/5yqg0V4cdTMJ.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubsc

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[GR]

I am also an Android app developer... gae seemed like the perfect choice as a 
back end for my apps.  My most successful app is free and ad supported... right 
now it just covers the old pricing...

The new pricing means I will have no choice but to shut down my back end (there 
is no way to make your app for-pay once it is free)... resulting in hundreds 
and hundreds of one star ratings... and a reputation that cannot be recovered 
from.

-- 
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/-/lhb6fnlXeZIJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Raymond C.]

The articles are not here to say HOW TO SCALE.  I was just saying scaling up 
is much easier and effective than scaling out.  You can scale up with just a 
few clicks on IAAS like AWS, without ever considering scaling out, to 
support a heavy site.

GAE can only does scale out, because its how its designed.  But saying GAE 
can scale while the other platforms can't do it easily is just wrong.

-- 
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/-/nX4rGIGNJmQJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Tim Hoffman]

So if it is so easy to scale up and out with these other solutions, why are 
you still here?

Why did you even start with appengine?

What value you do you see in appengine vs these other IAAS platforms?

I really would like to know.  You seem to only ever have negative comments 
about appengine at the moment and don't seem to
provide much in the way constructive suggestions for people to help them 
improve what they are doing with appengine.

T


-- 
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/-/iJL1bbdfBtIJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Raymond C.]

I started on GAE because of the same reason of you (PAAS without all the 
managing stuff).  Why I see GAE negatively now is that the price is over 
expensive and the pricing model is wrong (or at least not like when I 
started using it).  Isn't that obvious?  And there are no conflict between 
the two.  Why you think raising negative comments under this situation is 
wrong? 

We are not someone who just came in and say "you sucks" to Google.  We are 
the customers and testers who have been using and helped GAE from the early 
days till today.


We are providing no constructive suggestions?  We have been doing it all 
over the forum in the past few months.  Or you just think "saying sth good 
about the new pricing" is constructive suggestions?

What I am doing here (and maybe many other who are raising concerns now) is 
because we want Google to change their mind by realizing the problems that 
the change is producing.  Of course we will go if Google insists to use the 
new pricing models and if it dont fit us, but at least we are still trying 
before it is too late.


-- 
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/-/dZVDd3tH3o4J.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Tim Hoffman]

Raymond

Unfortunately I don't see a lot of postings detailing what the real 
alternatives to appengine are, what 
certain size traffic sites and data sets would actually cost to run on these 
alternatives.

May be you could provide a bit of an over view of your apps design, what its 
costing you, 
how much it would cost to move elsewhere and run it on some other platform 
and what it would really cost to run 
on that platform. What are the strengths and weaknesses of these other 
platforms are, so that others in this community 
can get some guidance.

Lots of people are throwing around statements like it is cheaper to run on 
heroku or AWS, but just not a lot of hard facts 
at the moment.  

A quick look at Heroku tells me a single dyno + 20GB shared DB will cost $15 
per month, and 2 dynos + 20GB 
shared DB is $50 per month.  Now I know nothing about Heroku but thats what 
their pricing page is telling me.
 (Correct these figures if they are wrong)

Which all suggests to me that Heroku would cost about the same to host a 
small appengine app.

Rgds

Tim

-- 
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/-/4uORTgZzKBUJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Cameron Corda]

Wesley,

The contact email shows up as "appengine_up...[at]google.com" in the web 
interface of groups.  Can you please spell out what it is?  This might make 
sense to put into the FAQ that you linked as well.

-- 
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/-/MjZ6N9Bks1wJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Gergely Orosz]

I understand Google's reasons behind the change of pricing. However the way 
you're going about it is completely amateur and the perfect example of how 
to alienate your customers. Here are the main reasons:

1. I am an early adopter. We've read the FAQs and docs when signing up and 
chose GAE because of the lucrative CPU time based billing, I learny Python 
only to be able to take advantage of this. This was the core of the service 
which you're now throwing out the window.

2. I trusted Google enough to build and scale on GAE - of course it was in 
preview but Gmail was in beta for 3 years and nothing changed after that 
went stable. How was I to assume that leaving preview will include dramatic 
changing in the service offered (CPU time) and pricing (now up 400% on my 
side). Oh, right, should have probably not put trust in Google.

3. Transition time: after 3 years of preview you've suddenly given us 2 
weeks to adjust to the new environment... except the new environment still 
has faults (no Python 2.7 and the scheduler buggy). Today you've extended 
this by another week and a half. This is a completely unreasonable timeframe 
and the fact that even the GAE team doesn't have a set date implies that 
there's quite some chaos going on on your side as well.

4. Communication: all you've provided as guidance is a few liner pricing 
page, a blog post and a really short FAQ - all that barely go into any 
detail. Guess we'll have to figure out how to optimize for the new system. 
It's pretty clear from this form that either Google doesn't care about the 
few hundred percent of price increase that its customers will have to pay 
without investing heavily into optimizing their apps or that this was 
actually the motive (I remember Google started out as "Don't be evil" - but 
that was a while back).

I have been very much disappointed in how this situation is being (not) 
communicated and handled. I've completely lost the hard earned trust in 
Google. I'll try to optimize my app as much as I can and at the same point 
make steps to migrate to more viable platforms. This bitter lesson is also 
alienating me from using other Google developer platforms and services.

If you ask me you've just gained and tested a great enterprise cloud service 
(congratulations for that) and slapped all the early adopter developers 
using it in the face, degrading them to Guinea pig testers (congratulations 
for that as well). I would call this a short sighted move, but then again 
that's probably why I'm not running the GAE team.


-- 
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/-/ivMPoB-RXwoJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Jonathan B]

Ever since Larry Page become CEO, Google has got worse and worse and worse. 
>From UI changes for users, to this.
I can understand wanting to raise the pricing, but why an entirely new model 
that changes the cost so variably between users. Why didn't you just lower 
the free limit on the old pricing model?

As for your "preview" and "beta" labels that is a load rubbish. Everyone 
knows how weakly Google uses labels like those. (e.g., A lot of complaints 
from Apple developers when users see the words "beta" or "preview" on your 
services then buy a Developer account to get new software and then complain 
about the bugs, not realising what beta or preview mean)

Have you been making a loss on GAE or something? What happened to don't be 
evil? You won't admit to it being baiting and switching, but it has had 
exactly the same effect.

Why are the changes so drastic???

-- 
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/-/yOogDzc4rNAJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[michael]

purely speculation but I'd be willing to bet...

   - App Engine was close to going the way of Wave, the free translate API 
   and Labs.
   
   - someone/some group pushed back hard for one last chance to make it 
   profitable with the new pricing model
   
   - 2011 4th quarter is the make|break time for app engine. If it doesn't 
   become profitable right away with the new pricing then the 3 year clock will 
   start ticking, probably no later than the 2nd quarter of 2012
   
   
I think it's unfair to cast the GAE team as being party to any kind of bait 
and switch strategy. From the outside looking in it appears the culture is 
changing from being engineering/ideas driven to being business/profit driven 
and GAE is just trying to survive the transition. As a very early GAE 
adopter, promoter and someone who built a thriving business on Google API's 
I hope they get lucky and make it.

-- 
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/-/7pEmA3YHM18J.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

Hi Benjamin,

Glad you're offering your skills for consultations. That'll help a lot of
folks who are looking for hands-on support.

In terms of monetization, that's tough. There are a few businesses that are
able to totally bootstrap their way to profitability, but I think we have to
be careful when reading these stories to not believe that every single
business can be like this. For instance, Google itself was losing lots of
money every year and took several years to become profitable. I can't even
imagine how to deal with losses on that scale. I come from a family
of restauranteurs, and it would often take years to recoup the initial
purchase of a lease for a physical location. It blew my mind that you needed
to borrow money for the right to *rent* a place, but it gave me perspective
on how difficult it is to launch a business.

That being said, we still believe the new App Engine pricing is favorable to
small businesses. For tips, there's another thread on this group about how
some people are able to generate lots of revenue using AdSense:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine/b80ifEOmRAc

Comparing App Engine to a dollar VPS isn't a fair comparison, and many of
the pricing comparisons to infrastructure-as-a-service providers such as EC2
in this thread are flawed.

Do know that we are paying attention to posts where people make comparisons
between App Engine and other platform based services such as Heroku, Cloud
Foundry, dotcloud, and others. I'm pretty good at setting up production
servers, and I spent part of this weekend helping a friend set up a
production cluster running Postgres, Tomcat, Nginx, an NFS mount, Monit,
Munin, a deploy/rollback script, basic iptables, HAproxy, etc, and it was
not trivial. One of the really great things about virtualization is that all
of this can be stored in an image and replicated once it's done, but
managing that many moving parts really isn't easy at all, even after it's
set up. I wrote a doc about all the things I've seen go wrong and how he can
deal with it once his stuff is launched, but even I can't prepare him for
every possible contingency. Everything breaks in ways you don't expect (this
is also true of our stuff, BTW, I'm not bagging on open source). Yes, he'll
have to wake up at 2am and fix things in the middle of the night.

We're trying to think of a way to make App Engine work well for education
and non-profits. Stay tuned.

I'm personally bummed that we couldn't make things work for you with the new
pricing. App Engine isn't going away, but we do want to encourage everyone
to really do an evaluation of alternative stacks before diving all in,
because, from my personal experience, there are no silver bullets. When I
get a chance, I'll throw together a quick blog post about some ways to
export/import your data since we haven't solved that one particularly well
yet.

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Benjamin  wrote:

> I'm concerned that since my site (www.nimbits.com) doesn't make any
> money right now, the new prices may kill it before it reaches critical
> mass. That is, I have a business model similar to twitter: i need a
> lot of users feeding me a lot of data before mining that data becomes
> valuable - but people aren't going to want to pay to feed me their
> data.
>
> I'd really appreciate guidance from google on the best ways to
> monetize an app, or pass costs on to the users.
>
> I'm quite skilled at java / GAE btw, and do freelance consulting - if
> anyone needs assistance in tuning their apps to run at lower costs
> feel free to drop me a line.
>
> - Ben
>
>
> On Sep 1, 1:07 am, Robert Kluin  wrote:
> > I've not had time to play with Python 2.7 to see how much threads help
> yet, but the scheduler needs work too.  I frequently see under 1 QPS /
> instance on low (sub 150ms) latency apps.  I may be way of the mark, but it
> seems like just getting that fixed would be a significant reduction in cost
> for us, and a better utilization of resources for Google.
> >
> > On Aug 31, 2011, at 20:44, "Ikai Lan (Google)" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jason,
> >
> > > I'm thinking a lot of the biggest apparent price increases come from
> the fact that Python 2.5 instances are single threaded, whereas Python 2.7
> with multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to
> work with you to make this happen.
> >
> > > The billing email queues should be working now, so I want to encourage
> you especially to open a ticket via that email alias.
> >
> > > --
> > > Ikai Lan
> > > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> > > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Jason Collins <
> jason.a.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We are going from $5,400/month to $26,500/month (Python) - and this is
> > > only one of our apps.
> >
> > > We are going to work hard to optimize o

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Gregory D'alesandre]

The email address is appengine_updated_pric...@google.com and that's a good
idea.

Greg

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Cameron Corda  wrote:

> Wesley,
>
> The contact email shows up as "appengine_up...[at]google.com" in the web
> interface of groups.  Can you please spell out what it is?  This might make
> sense to put into the FAQ that you linked as well.
>
> --
> 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/-/MjZ6N9Bks1wJ.
>
> 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Vinuth Madinur]

I'm not moving away. But I'm porting a part of my application over to S3. I
can't start paying $9 a month for storing 2.3 GB of data while all else is
within quota limit. I prefer S3's billing of pay for what you use.


On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Gregory D'alesandre wrote:

> The email address is appengine_updated_pric...@google.com and that's a
> good idea.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Cameron Corda  wrote:
>
>> Wesley,
>>
>> The contact email shows up as "appengine_up...[at]google.com" in the web
>> interface of groups.  Can you please spell out what it is?  This might make
>> sense to put into the FAQ that you linked as well.
>>
>> --
>> 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/-/MjZ6N9Bks1wJ.
>>
>> 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[James Singh]

Yes, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, 
BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND 
STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, 
BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND 
STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH... , BAIT AND STITCH!!!

Since Google didn't have quality cloud computing server of their own that 
can stand aside Amazon EC2, they played all this BAIT AND STITCH business 
game.

I'm moving on to EC2. Sayonara GAE. 

-- 
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/-/WX7pVPuI2rUJ.
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

It hurt my heart to let that last post through (it was a first time poster).

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:45 PM, James Singh
wrote:

>
> Yes, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH,
> BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND
> STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH,
> BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND
> STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH... , BAIT AND STITCH!!!
>
> Since Google didn't have quality cloud computing server of their own that
> can stand aside Amazon EC2, they played all this BAIT AND STITCH business
> game.
>
> I'm moving on to EC2. Sayonara GAE.
>
> --
> 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/-/WX7pVPuI2rUJ.
>
> 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Will]

Ikai,

It makes me feel sad that you intended to block the previous post.
What he said isn't particularly rude or offensive, just expressing his
feelings, though in a childish way. Whould you block it had it said
something positive about GAE, in a similar manner?

I've been using GAE for almost 3 years, and I feel the similar
regarding the new pricing mode. I can feel that the GAE team works
hard and goes extra miles to help fellow developers cope with the
change, but that doesn't change the core fact.

My estimated bill does become lower substantially after following
guidances posted here, but still a very significant increase.

Regards,

Will

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Ikai Lan (Google)  wrote:
> It hurt my heart to let that last post through (it was a first time poster).
> --
> Ikai Lan
> Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:45 PM, James Singh 
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH,
>> BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND
>> STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH,
>> BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND
>> STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH... , BAIT AND STITCH!!!
>> Since Google didn't have quality cloud computing server of their own that
>> can stand aside Amazon EC2, they played all this BAIT AND STITCH business
>> game.
>> I'm moving on to EC2. Sayonara GAE.
>>
>> --
>> 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/-/WX7pVPuI2rUJ.
>> 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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

You misunderstood. We don't block posts unless there are very good reasons
(spam, someone's privacy or safety is at risk, etc). I never intended to
blocking it.

--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai



On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Will  wrote:

> Ikai,
>
> It makes me feel sad that you intended to block the previous post.
> What he said isn't particularly rude or offensive, just expressing his
> feelings, though in a childish way. Whould you block it had it said
> something positive about GAE, in a similar manner?
>
> I've been using GAE for almost 3 years, and I feel the similar
> regarding the new pricing mode. I can feel that the GAE team works
> hard and goes extra miles to help fellow developers cope with the
> change, but that doesn't change the core fact.
>
> My estimated bill does become lower substantially after following
> guidances posted here, but still a very significant increase.
>
> Regards,
>
> Will
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Ikai Lan (Google) 
> wrote:
> > It hurt my heart to let that last post through (it was a first time
> poster).
> > --
> > Ikai Lan
> > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:45 PM, James Singh <
> icloud.technolog...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH,
> >> BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT
> AND
> >> STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND
> STITCH,
> >> BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT
> AND
> >> STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH... , BAIT AND STITCH!!!
> >> Since Google didn't have quality cloud computing server of their own
> that
> >> can stand aside Amazon EC2, they played all this BAIT AND STITCH
> business
> >> game.
> >> I'm moving on to EC2. Sayonara GAE.
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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/-/WX7pVPuI2rUJ.
> >> 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.