←back to thread

528 points sealeck | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
brundolf ◴[] No.31391105[source]
The only thing I don't like is their usage-based pricing. On Heroku I could pay $7 a month and know I'd never be charged more than that. I'm sure when you're scaling a service it's fine - maybe even better - to do it on a sliding scale. But for a fire-and-forget blog site, I don't want to have to worry about stuff like that.
replies(7): >>31391168 #>>31391192 #>>31391253 #>>31391362 #>>31392452 #>>31392496 #>>31395938 #
mrkurt ◴[] No.31391192[source]
This is a problem. And a bit of an own goal on our part.

I hate services that don't put a price on things like bandwidth (because there's always a price!). So we priced bandwidth and made it transparent. You can put an app on Fly.io and server petabytes of data every month, if you want. We'll never complain that you're serving the wrong content type.

But the reality is – having an unlimited bandwidth promise is perfect for for a fire and forget blog site. We're not doing ourselves any favors with scary pricing for that kind of app.

replies(8): >>31391245 #>>31391399 #>>31391400 #>>31391442 #>>31393115 #>>31393823 #>>31394011 #>>31395406 #
EnKopVand ◴[] No.31391400[source]
I don’t want an unlimited bandwidth promise, I want a cap that I know can never be exceeded. I mean, I use Azure professionally and one of the key reasons I don’t use it to host my own stuff is exactly because it could potentially become very expensive. I’d rather have my own stuff shut down until I decide what I want to do with it.

Things like alerts are fine, professionally, but not for things like running a small app, blog or whatever, that you’re not sure where is heading.

I don’t think anything I’ve build on my own time has ever ended up breaking my bank, but signing up my credit card is a risk I’m never going to take, and I’m fairly certain I’m not alone in that. Of course I have no idea if there are enough of us to make small scale fixed prices products profitable at scale.

replies(4): >>31391451 #>>31393636 #>>31393664 #>>31393742 #
manigandham ◴[] No.31393636[source]
This topic has been discussed many times. There's no easy solution to what happens after the cap is exceeded - should the vendor delete everything? - which is why so many of them don't bother.

And for customers, it's far easier to negotiate billing disputes then to try and recover from an account deletion because of spending caps (and there have been plenty of examples of companies shutting down because of such a mistake here).

replies(3): >>31395003 #>>31395377 #>>31399802 #
xchaotic ◴[] No.31395003[source]
Imo it’s really simple, actually. Stop the service and delete after the next billing cycle. Price that in for regular price of the service.
replies(1): >>31395236 #
manigandham ◴[] No.31395236[source]
That's limited to free tiers that usually deactivate or delete if there's too much usage.

Anything with production usage and pay-as-you-go pricing means data at rest still costs money - and requires deleting to avoid accruing new charges. Do you want your databases and volumes and object storage deleted when your app stops?

And if this was offered then there would be a whole new class of mistakes leading to lost data. Like I said, billing is easier to negotiate than deleted accounts.

replies(2): >>31399339 #>>31399875 #
1. brundolf ◴[] No.31399339[source]
> billing is easier to negotiate than deleted accounts

Maybe, but I'd still like the option. My blog site is stateless so I couldn't care less if the service got deleted