I mean really cold cache from the above user is at 5000ms that's pretty horrible. When I tried I got 2800ms. Take a look around it seems to be mostly from fetching static content which is a classic problem CDNs solve.
One doesn't even need pro. In our use, Cloudflare's pages.dev and workers.dev serves single-digit TB traffic with triple-digit million hits at $30/mo. We pay $0/mo for origin servers since there aren't any.
People have been citing $30/month. Even if you value your time at min wage, its probably still cheaper than setting up your own varnish (and that's assuming you don't care about improving the last little bit of latency with geo located edge servers)
To answer the actual question - its the obvious answer. They make a product that works well and is relatively cheap. Is it without drawbacks? obviously not, nothing is. However, for a significant segment of the market the value proposition makes sense.
So what? Unless your website is offering some superficial junk that can easily be found elsewhere, you’re not going to lose a user.
For something like photopea, there aren’t sub-second alternatives out there.
> For something like photopea, there aren’t sub-second alternatives out there.
if there is't one now, there will be. Besides, with a little CDN and tweaking you improve your users enjoyment. Why not?
> Now, I upgraded to $60 a month. I never used any CDN.
Why not go back to the $40/month plan and spend $20/month on Cloudflare Pro?
I was able to load photopea.com in about 5000ms, uncached. That's not terrible, but it was slow enough that I wondered for a few seconds if the site was broken. A CDN would cut that load time massively, and it wouldn't even be a net cost increase because you could downsize your server.