←back to thread

461 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
modernerd ◴[] No.42134059[source]
"Billing alerts" are a joke, give us hard spend limits. Then offer a way to set those limits during onboarding.

Building a business on blank cheques and accidental spends is shady. It's also a large barrier to adoption. The more times devs see reports like, "I tried [random 20-minute tutorial] and woke up to a bill for my life's savings and luckily support waived the fee this one time but next time they're coming for my house", the less they'll want to explore your offerings.

replies(20): >>42134131 #>>42134150 #>>42134268 #>>42134271 #>>42134282 #>>42134287 #>>42134291 #>>42134375 #>>42134462 #>>42134469 #>>42134517 #>>42134613 #>>42134695 #>>42134828 #>>42135170 #>>42135288 #>>42135373 #>>42135557 #>>42135706 #>>42136718 #
soup10 ◴[] No.42134375[source]
Spend limits are such an obvious and necessary feature that the only reason they don't have them is shady business practices.
replies(2): >>42134483 #>>42135346 #
lukeramsden ◴[] No.42134483[source]
Not really. Do you think that this is trivial at AWS scale? What do you do when people hit their hard spend limits, start shutting down their EC2 instances and deleting their data? I can see the argument that just because its "hard" doesn't mean they shouldn't do it, but it's disingenuous to say they're shady because they don't.
replies(9): >>42134529 #>>42134586 #>>42134724 #>>42134741 #>>42134961 #>>42135020 #>>42135028 #>>42135354 #>>42135796 #
lucianbr ◴[] No.42134724{3}[source]
> Do you think that this is trivial at AWS scale?

What a ridiculous point. AWS achieves non-trivial things at scale all the time, and brag about it too.

So many smart engineers with high salaries and they can't figure out a solution like "shut down instances so costs don't continue to grow, but keep the data so nothing critical is lost, at least for a limited time"?

Disingenuous is what you are writing - oh no, it's a hard problem, they can't be expected to even try to solve it.

replies(2): >>42134992 #>>42136245 #
1. benterix ◴[] No.42134992{4}[source]
> Disingenuous is what you are writing - oh no, it's a hard problem, they can't be expected to even try to solve it.

I find it funny people bring this pseudo-argument up whenever this issue is discussed. Customers: "We want A, it's crucial for us". People on the Internet: "Do you have any idea how difficult is to implement A? How would it work?" And the discussion diverges into technical details obscuring the main point: AWS is bent on on never implementing this feature even though in the past (that is more than a decade ago) they promised they would do that.