A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month

Re:A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to ... by corford on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @10:54AM (#14358982)

To be clear, the only time any of this matters is when a huge, unexpected bill arrives. Day to day, you should anticipate any big, legitimate bills and make sure funds are there to settle them (or you scale back usage to avoid getting smacked).

It's when a big bill lands in error or is introduced sneakily that having a separate "cloud only card" can save you. In that case, it's the supplier that's gone nuclear and you're just responding in kind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to ... by mseebach on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @11:11AM (#14359195)

Sure, but that's just not what we're discussing here. The author of the original article clearly authorised the increased spend (but obviously not the sudden change causing it), and could have declined (presumably at the cost of having his app throttled or shut down). Nothing about a "cloud only card" would have changed his situation the least.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to ... by corford on Wednesday May 17, 2017 @11:19AM (#14359286)

Totally agree. If he/she authorised it after being given an opportunity to decline then, yes, it's absolutely on them. /me clearly didn't read the article ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]