It seems to me that many people are losing sight of the fact that there will still be a free tier.
So our proverbial web developer can tinker around with her app for as long as she wants, at no cost. Once SHE decides to, she can avail herself of scalability and an SLA for $9 a month, which seems very reasonable to me. If her app needs more resources and she can't afford $9 a month, then her app is not financially sustainable and will die. A shame, but it has to happen. Otherwise hundreds of thousands of unsustainable apps will consume infrastructure and support resources, and increase the cost for everyone else. To those still bellyaching over $9, maybe you should build your own server. Invest probably $1000 for hardware, $50 a month for internet connection, and however many hours it takes to manage the machine. And you can host all the other people's apps for free - or is it only Google who should give away app hosting for free? Or of course you could switch to AWS. Don't forget you'll need two instances in different regions for redundancy, and the cost of bandwidth between them to synchronise, and you still need to put in quite a lot of time managing it all... does $9 seem reasonable now? There is still a lot of dust in the air - we don't know how the new scheduler will work, and it may be that Python 2.7 and multiple threads suddenly makes everything ten times cheaper. We really don't know what the new costs will be until we get comparison billing. But after all is said and done, I'm still glad I built my apps on Appengine, and I'm glad Google are making it more commercially sustainable. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
