This, for me, is the crux of this issue. I doubt very much that this was Google's intention, but it now appears that when the infrastructure suffers degradation outside of their control, app owners have to pay more for it.
With all the amazing things that App Engine offers, I don't need it to be perfect, but that certainly doesn't seem to make sense. On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:17:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Schnitzer wrote: > > > I prefer GAE too, but this means I want to congratulate the team for > the many good things they do and hold their feet to the fire when they > do bad things. "Degraded service == more profitable" is a perverse > incentive, and will eventually produce undesirable development > priorities and turn happy customers into angry customers. From a game > design perspective, this is a bad way to structure a business > relationship. > > -- 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/-/xsVC6iohIFAJ. 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.
