Does not really change much What will be helpful is when google announces prices comparable to AWS
On Sep 8, 8:00 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's the body of the post if you can't get to Plus for whatever reason: > > -------------- > > *TL;DR: New pricing postponed to Nov 1, instance hour discount extended to > Dec 1, Python 2.7 expected by Dec 1, your bill is likely to go up but less > than you fear, plus an analysis of why App Engine is still a great deal.* > > I’m the Engineering Director at Google responsible for App Engine. Nice to > meet you! > > We’re excited about coming out of preview and becoming a fully supported > Google product. Besides new features, a 99.95% SLA, new Terms of Service, > paid support, and monthly invoicing, we’re also changing the pricing model. > We rolled out “side-by-side” billing last week to all App Engine developers, > and sent an email with accompanying information, showing the predicted > effects of the new pricing on all applications. > > This has created a bit of consternation. I’d like to take the opportunity to > provide some commentary on two topics: the timeline, and the price increase > per se. > > First topic, the timeline. > > Many developers feel that they are being given too little time to make > adjustments. We announced the new prices in May, and we thought the > side-by-side billing would be just the next phase; instead, for many > (arguably most) developers the side-by-side billing is just the start of > their adjustment. > > It’s clear we were wrong: expecting developers to figure out their future > costs from information in the admin console was simply too obtuse. We made a > classic error: we’re too familiar with our own product. > > So I apologize: we should have realized this and put out a version of > side-by-side billing much sooner. But this is easy enough to fix: we’ll just > give you more time. So instead of turning on the billing in the second half > of September, we are giving developers more time to fine tune their > application by moving that date to November 1st. > > Another aspect of the timeline that has caused concern is the uncertainty > about the availability of Python 2.7, which will bring concurrent request > support to our Python developers (it’s already in place for Java). We added > a 50% instance price discount to compensate for the delay, and said we would > remove that discount on November 20th. We’ve decided that we’ll extend that > discount to December 1st, by which time we expect to have Python 2.7 > available. > > Second topic, the pricing increase per se. > > The vision for Google App Engine is to provide a development environment for > cloud applications to run on Google’s infrastructure. In particular, if you > build on App Engine, it should be: > > * free to get started and easy to use > * simple to make it scalable > * trivial to maintain it > > App Engine is a classical case of platform computing trade-offs. What would > you like? High scalability, ease of use, low maintenance, high reliability, > security? Pick any two and somebody can make it super cheap. But if you want > three or four, or all five, things become a little more dicey. With App > Engine we are targeting doing all five at the same time, because we think > that’s what cloud application developers ultimately want, and we think > that’s what the future of cloud computing entails. And we’ve decided to > package that offering into a free tier and two paid tiers: > > * The generous free tier that App Engine has been offering has remained > unique in the industry. We will continue to offer a free tier: a small web > application with low traffic should not cost anything to run on App Engine. > The new free quota levels are lower than before, so many pre-existing free > applications will require tuning, however the principle will remain: App > Engine is the only major platform to offer a free tier that’s not > time-limited. If you have a small app that you can’t get under the free > quotas, post in our forums and we’ll try to help. (But please try to tune it > first.) > * The paid tier will charge for resource usage, with a minimum $9/month to > enable the 99.95% SLA. And that SLA does not carve-out time for maintenance > windows: App Engine can be upgraded without planned downtime for your app. > The pricing in the paid tier is structured so that the vast majority of > applications will find their total cost of ownership (TCO) to be lower than > the competition. If you find that this is not the case for you, then feel > free to share your calculations with us. The second paid tier, premier > accounts, adds operational support and monthly invoicing. > > Our goal is to make the best possible cloud application platform for > developers. The feedback we’ve received over the years is that people want > things like great reliability, more features, quicker bug fixes, fewer > restrictions, etc. We can deliver all these things but it requires App > Engine to become a sustainable product for Google. To be clear, we’re not in > the business of selling cycles. The vast majority of our costs are in the > talented engineers that develop, maintain, operate, and support the overall > App Engine service. And they’re not just any engineers, they’re some of the > most talented and dedicated individuals I’ve had the honor to work with. > They care passionately about the platform and the developer experience. And > that’s where we want to invest. > > But even if we look at just the cycles - then no, not all cycles are created > equal. This is one of the reasons we want to change our resource concept > from “CPU” to “Instance”. App Engine instance hours are fully managed, fully > provisioned, run in the context of a set of fully-maintained services, and > there are no hidden costs. Just the consumer cost of electricity for running > a single server in your home will cost you more than running most apps on > App Engine. > > And our instances are fully redundant, and we take care of switching between > redundant data centers for you. We have over 100% capacity provisioning: we > can lose not just one but more than one data centers and still run the > entire workload, without applications being impacted. And we have full > provisioning for spikes: in the week following the Japanese earthquake, our > traffic to Japan doubled. Japan is our second largest country in terms of > App Engine traffic after the US, so this amounted to adding capacity for a > whole 100M population country in a just a few days. App Engine is so well > provisioned that we didn’t need to add more capacity or intervene in any > way. > > App Engine instances run on Google’s own infrastructure in our own data > centers, with the same security and monitoring as services like Gmail and > Docs: Google employs a large team of security experts. And our extremely > talented reliability engineers are on pagers 24/7 across global time zones: > when subsystems have problems, we’re on the case, so you don’t have to be. > The high replication datastore (HRD) that we rolled out in January has had > no outages since launch. > > That said, the new App Engine prices *are* higher. In fact I expect many > large applications after optimizing will end up paying 2-5x more than > before. Many small applications will no longer fit into the free quota > without optimization or performance tradeoffs. And many applications that > only had to pay a little bit above free quota now have to pay more. > > But I believe that for the vast majority of applications, a reasonable total > cost analysis will find that App Engine is a great deal. And it’s only going > to get better. We have a ton of cool improvements in the pipeline. > > Thank you for your attention, and feel free to email me directly at > [email protected]. And if you come to Thirsty Bear in San Francisco tonight, > I’ll buy you a beer. > > -- > Ikai Lan > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:58 PM, psm <[email protected]> wrote: > > We'll be posting more details on the blog shortly. > > >https://plus.google.com/110401818717224273095/posts/AA3sBWG92gu > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google App Engine" group. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/jkbAm-QWYwkJ. > > 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. -- 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.
