Only if you spend a huge amount of time integrating with their API. It won't be more expensive than Nuance, so prepare with their pricing in mind and you'll be fine ($.008 / transaction over 20k monthly transactions).

https://developer.nuance.com/public/index.php?task=memberSer...

If you do any kind of volume with Nuance you get get pretty significant discounts.

On a past project, i think we got 45% off list without too much trouble.

I was really hoping they would post at least a preview of what the pricing will be.

AppEngine pricing change resulted in a nasty surprise for a lot of people and a lot of vitriol towards Google. Just one article on this from many: http://readwrite.com/2011/09/02/google-app-engine-pricing-an...

While the platform has moved way ahead of where it was in 2011, the memory of this is still in the back of people's mind and it would be a good move on Google's part to at least try to engender more trust by giving directional pricing.

It is funny reading this in hindsight. We went straight to AWS, also for long running tcp connections, and never looked at it again. After that I have never recommended app engine.

Wasn't that five years ago? When it came out of preview (and prices were expected to change)?

It was - 2011 is mentioned in both article and my comment.

I just wish Google wouldn't bring back memories of that by not disclosing pricing of a very promising API.

GAE has moved quite far ahead since then, but many people still won't consider it after the bad experience. Perceptions die hard...

They probably are using usage data in the free period to drive decisions on pricing.

Sure, would expect nothing less, but I'm also sure they have some sense of the range they are looking for. Such a range could help developers to establish whether their use case is viable or not.

As is, the ambiguity is a deterrent from too much time investment.

Or the data determines that they have to price outside the hypothetical early-release range, and then you have people complaining that you lied.

They did something very similar to this for their translate API. Realtime IRC client plugins that translated lines in foreign languages into yours in near-realtime went from "awesome" to "just kidding, nevermind" virtually overnight.

If (for any reasonably probable value of final pricing) the cost of voice recognition is a material factor in determining whether the application is economically feasible, you have larger problems. In other words: if your application's economics are going to swing materially depending on how this is priced, it's probably not going to work out even if they keep it free.

Apps can involve users speaking for ten seconds making selections, or an hour getting transcribed. Right now, we don't know the order of magnitude; adding voice interaction to an app could be $.01/user/year or it could be $100/user/year.

It depends. Imagine a hardware device that uses the speech API, and you're looking at the 3 year cost of an average of 5 speech interactions per day (something like the Amazon Echo). Using Nuance pricing of $0.008/request, you're adding 365 * 3 * 5 * $.008 = $43.80 in cost above the BOM cost; It's entirely possible that adding $20 to the BOM is viable, but adding $40 is not.

That may just be poor phrasing by TechCrunch. It's entirely possible Google will announce the pricing on launch day, but not charge for some period of time so people have the ability to develop the initial apps without paying.

Work in the pricing now (assuming it's the same as competition) and architecture your app so it's easy to replace the provider down the line if you need to, without breaking the clients.