←back to thread

231 points ryanvogel | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.714s | source
Show context
reducesuffering ◴[] No.45765316[source]
I like PlanetScale, but they already have precedent very recently for having a free-tier and then cancelling it for a minimum of $40/month plan, which made many people switch. What's to stop them from doing the same here?

Be wary of building a cheap hobby project on it expecting pricing to stay consistent. If $40+ isn't feasible for you, you may be trying to switch off to a hosted PostgreSQL option, with all the pain MySQL->Postgres entails, soon.

replies(5): >>45765347 #>>45765446 #>>45765454 #>>45768935 #>>45772335 #
carlm42 ◴[] No.45765454[source]
(Planetscale employee) This is very different though: it's not a free tier, it's an actual single node DB as a paid product. It's definitely not a good fit for every usecase, but if you have a hobby project it's a great way to start with plenty of room to scale if/when you get actual usage
replies(1): >>45765759 #
CryptoBanker ◴[] No.45765759[source]
It's very similar in that it's not a huge source of revenue for Planetscale, so easy to pull the rug without disrupting revenue too much
replies(2): >>45765878 #>>45766191 #
1. carlm42 ◴[] No.45766191[source]
Similarly to other replies (but my own opinion): it's not a huge source of revenue today, on a single customer basis, compared to our biggest customers, sure. But our goal is to provide potential customers that can't justify larger scale, 3-nodes databases, something they can build on and grow on our platform. We would never want to pull the rug on paying customers: we want to enable them :-) sure it's not a huge part of our revenue, but that's not the goal. We just want to provide a great product, in a way that's affordable to everyone. You of course don't have to take my word, but I think it makes business sense to do this and not pull the rug. Compare to a free tier where you bleed money in the hopes that customers will end up paying you. Hope isn't a good business strategy right? :-)
replies(1): >>45768312 #