News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A few adjustments to App Engine’s upcoming pricing changes by bane on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:36PM (#2979963)
Better Google...Better...

Finally some reasonable communication, reasonable pricing models (extended discount) that don't penalize certain platform users (Python) over others (Java), better information on pricing and analysis of applications, reasonable free instance hours etc.

Keep this up and my rage will finally start to simmer down.

Now one thing that still hasn't been addressed is the following catch-22.

It's my understanding that in order to take advantage of scaling, user will have to pay a minimum $9/month (or whatever it is) fee. However, free users are resource capped. However, if you pay for scalability, but never need it for some reason, or only need it a couple times a year, you may as well have just stayed free -- otherwise you're out $108/year!

Still it's too bad that this pricing change and the charge-metrics are such a moving target, it's virtually impossible to figure out how to optimize for the change since any work somebody does to fix a 1000% price increase might go out the window tomorrow as pricing gets revised, or a metric gets changed (we've decided to measure electron transfer across system buses!).

This is a huge PR lesson -- heck this could be a 2 semester course! Google should have fixed the major pricing issues from the beginning, set a fixed target for people to work towards, been earlier with discounts and understanding language penalties, actually (shock) communicated with their developer base and done some actual price comparisons across their entire hosting environment to realize what a huge change this is introducing.

It's clear even Google didn't realize what a clusterfuck the new pricing model has introduced and Google's biggest problem, communication, has been the root of all the trouble.

Re:A few adjustments to App Engine’s upcoming pricing changes by StavrosK on Friday September 09, 2011 @07:08PM (#2980192)
> It's my understanding that in order to take advantage of scaling, user will have to pay a minimum $9/month (or whatever it is) fee. However, free users are resource capped. However, if you pay for scalability, but never need it for some reason, or only need it a couple times a year, you may as well have just stayed free -- otherwise you're out $108/year!

Looks like they're retiring that. Instead, you'll have "min active instances", which you can set to 1 to always have a multi-threaded instance preloaded, and still stay under the free tier, while only paying for anything that goes over it.

Win/win, it seems.

Re:A few adjustments to App Engine’s upcoming pricing changes by bane on Friday September 09, 2011 @08:02PM (#2980293)
Interesting...our new monthly bill is showing a strange ~$.30/day charge increase over everything else which averages out to about $9/mo. I'm looking forward to them fixing the new billing preview a bit more and will take another look.

If you are right, their solution sounds optimal. It's been my understanding that what the $9/mo was really for was the SLA, but frankly I could give a hoot about the SLA, but I need the instance scalability.

Re:A few adjustments to App Engine’s upcoming pricing changes by StavrosK on Friday September 09, 2011 @08:33PM (#2980362)
The $9, as far as I can recall, was for the three always-on instances you got. Since they're retiring those, allowing you to set your own, you can take that off the bill. It sounds to me like you can be on the free plan with enabled billing and only pay for overages.
Re:A few adjustments to App Engine’s upcoming pricing changes by bad_user on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:58PM (#2980037)
What bothered me the most is that they originally said the new pricing scheme is in response to customers feedback.
Re:A few adjustments to App Engine’s upcoming pricing changes by bane on Friday September 09, 2011 @07:59PM (#2980284)
sigh it was also a $50 credit, not a 50% discount. It appears that what they are trying to say, and not terribly successfully is that the "customer feedback" was the need for an SLA...which is really what they are charging for...and what gets lost in all this confused information and repricing and remeasuring nonsense.

Personally, we're not big enough to really care about the SLA...