Keep it short: Who is forced to leave GAE?

[Raymond C.]

I am not asking who is not happy with the new pricing (virtually most of GAE users).

I am just asking who is FORCED to leave GAE because you cannot afford to keep running on GAE under the new pricing model.  Please (if possible) state the monthly price change as well.

And what options you are considering?

[Raymond C.]

I am one of them.  Monthly charge: $900  -> $2850 (310%)

I have been looking at EC2, every cost is clear and I can control over everything.

[Joakim Erdfelt]

We are moving 22 servers away.

Already started the process to move to AWS.

Our costs went up 2800% under the new pricing.

[Daniel Upton]

I will be forced to leave app engine. I already spend thousands per
month, but that will increase to thousands per week. I'm seeing an
increase of 300%. Unless there is a change of policy I will be leaving
asap.

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

Hey guys, just some data collection: are you guys running Python?

--

Ikai Lan 
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine

plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai

--
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/-/yvS-RalUAasJ.

To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[Jason Collins]

We are going from $5,400/month to $26,500/month (Python) - and this is
only one of our apps.

We are going to work hard to optimize our application because we
really like App Engine, but failing that, we may have to move
elsewhere.

j

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

Jason,

I'm thinking a lot of the biggest apparent price increases come from the fact that Python 2.5 instances are single threaded, whereas Python 2.7 with multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to work with you to make this happen. 

The billing email queues should be working now, so I want to encourage you especially to open a ticket via that email alias. 

--

Ikai Lan 
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine

plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai

[milosh zorica]

am already mostly on AWS... using GAE just on side

AWS offers the best bangs for bucks ratio so far

--
Milosh Zorica

http://www.linkedin.com/in/miloshzorica

phone: +44 20 8144 5294
e-mail: milosh...@gmail.com
skype: milosh.zorica

[Raymond C.]

I am.  Maybe check again when the new concurrency function come out.  But the new pricing is coming this month...

[Jason Collins]

Ikai,

I submitted to appengine_up...@google.com - I hope that is
the one you meant.

Yes, instance-hours is a huge increase. However, we are also seeing
large cost increases on datastore writes. Are taskqueue.add() counted
under datastore writes? We're trying to figure out why the number is
so massively high for our app (300M+ ops/day?!).

j

On Aug 31, 7:44 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)" <ika...@google.com> wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I'm thinking a lot of the biggest apparent price increases come from the
> fact that Python 2.5 instances are single threaded, whereas Python 2.7 with
> multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to work
> with you to make this happen.
>
> The billing email queues should be working now, so I want to encourage you
> especially to open a ticket via that email alias.
>
> --
> Ikai Lan
> Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
>

[P. Petrov]

I've already left GAE a couple of months ago. I.e. immediately after Greg replied to me that new pricing will come into effect before Python 2.7 and multithreading. My app has short bursts of thousands QPS, and without multithreading it was clear to me that for an unknown period I'd have to pay a very high price. Today's posts here prove that I was right.

Another reason was the insanely high price for instance hours - more than 10x the industry average. Sorry Google, but your servers are not made of gold. Paying that price is simply stupid, and I'm not stupid.

I've moved to a small VPS cluster at RackSpace Cloud. I rewrote my entire app as a Node.js application (previously was GAE/Python using Kay). Very happy so far, I don't think I'll ever return to GAE.

--

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/-/MDdHgnCrDecJ.

[Richard Arrano]

I'll be leaving if some of the prices aren't tweaked, particularly the
channels. I was banking on being able to use a large amount of
channels, likely in the thousands per day. I did a double take when I
realized the new price was per hundred rather than per thousand,
particularly when channels expire after two hours and need to be re-
created. Does anyone have a good alternative to the Channel API using
Amazon's solutions?

-Richard

[Santiago Lema]

Same here. Unless Python concurrency is so magical it cancels the
instance billing effect I'll have to move everything I can move away.
Or just turn it off because the indirect platform locking is rather
efficient.

I am not in the same league as those who pay thousands of dollars per
month but rather the average small developer who sees what was a 31 $
monthly bill jump to over 500 $.

I still don't understand why Google can't come up with a pricing that
is competitive with plain old linux hosting. I appreciate the
abstraction of the DataStore to save data but if getting rid of the
hassle of Linux admin means having the constant hassle of having to
optimize for the new GAE rules then maybe I should go back in time to
2000 and get a pair of good old servers.

[Martin Ceperley]

Richard, a good alternative to the Channel API is Beacon Push (http://beaconpush.com/) we have been using it and it's dead simple and works flawlessly. It supports broadcast messaging (with channel API does not out of the box) as well as per-user messaging. Also extremely affordable, 3 million messages for $3.29.

-Martin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.

[Srirangan]

Hi Martin, 

Thanks for sharing Beacon push. There are a couple of other such services as well. I evaluated them before opting for Channel API for Review19.

Reason being, the list of people to broadcast to is dynamic. For my app, there aren't fixed "rooms" or "groups" but the broadcast recipients changes frequently. 

Channel API doesn't impose any rules, and forces you to persist client state on the server. This initially "feels" wrong but can be a blessing in disguise as you optimize the logic to decide the broadcast recipients.

I'm not saying Beacon Push and similar services are "bad". They just didn't work as well as Channel API for my use case.

- Sri

--
Srirangan  |  About  Blog  GitHub  LinkedIn  Twitter

[Richard Arrano]

Thanks Martin, that looks like a great alternative. Do you know
anything about Amazon's SNS? Is it applicable as a Channel replacement
or am I misunderstanding it? Either way, looks like a good way to
replace the now extremely expensive Channel API. Google appears to be
pricing themselves out of the cloud computing business. And I agree
with the views of a poster in another thread who mentioned that
working with App Engine and their changing models is like trying to
hit a moving target. Developers can't and won't spend all their time
reworking their applications to avoid incurring huge charges when
Google changes pricing around.

Thanks,
Richard

[Srirangan]

>>  I did a double take when I realized the new price was per hundred

>> rather than per thousand,particularly when 

>> channels expire after two hours and need to be re-created.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't this charge apply only after you exceed your free quota or 8000 odd created channels per day?

[Raymond C.]

Hi Peter,

Could you share about the Database/Datastore experiences as well? What are the options on RackSpace Cloud and are they good/stable (went through the site but didnt see much info)?  I am highly interested in node.js, its just the database options concern me.

Thanks in advance.

[Raymond C.]

I have been using PubNub.  I skipped GAE Channels after knowing all the limitation, esp. its just for the browser.  PubNub has everything I need, fast and being able to message to multiple users at once.

[Raymond C.]

I dont know about Beacon Push, but with PubNub, everything could be dynamic, all "channels" are just a string which you can pre-calculate or dynamically allocate as you wish. 

[Martin Ceperley]

Richard, I haven't used Amazon SNS but from what I understand it not quite the same. Beacon Push is specifically for browser based real-time apps, using HTML5 WebSockets (and falling back on flash I believe) to push real-time JSON messages to connected users browsers. Amazon SNS seems to be more of a general backend service for powering cross platform notifications, not specifically for a browser as the client.

Like PubNub, channels in beacon push are just specified by a string and can be generated on the fly.

[Joakim Erdfelt]

Using the Java SDK.

Our "Frontend Instance Hours" is where the lions share of change is coming from.

Of the rest of the resources, only "Datastore Storage" will see a change (increase of 64% in cost)

[Prashant]

I am a student. I love GAE because it provides enough free quota to try out new ideas and run your app for free until you start making significant amount of profit.

I have an XMPP based chat app. I need atleast 100,000 XMPP stanzas/day (just to run my app without making any significant profit) which according to new pricing scheme will cost me $3 per month but the minimum monthly is $9. Now I am left with no other option but to shut my app down.

[Richard Arrano]

As far as I can tell on the new billing page, it says 100 under "Free
Quota" for "Channels Created" and then a rate of $0.01 for every 100
more channels created. I could be misinterpreting it, but it seems
clear cut.

PubNub also looks like a great alternative to Channels, I'll have to
look at the two and weigh them. On a related note, if my application
is written for webapp and Django, does anyone know if it would be a
relatively simple task to set up Django/webapp on EC2 and transition
my code? Obviously I'd have to change the database to use SimpleDB,
but again, how arduous would this task be?

-Richard

[Robert Kluin]

I've not had time to play with Python 2.7 to see how much threads help yet, but the scheduler needs work too.  I frequently see under 1 QPS / instance on low (sub 150ms) latency apps.  I may be way of the mark, but it seems like just getting that fixed would be a significant reduction in cost for us, and a better utilization of resources for Google. 

[johnP]

But Robert - you did not address the Root Question: why *should*
Google dial back the revenue knob?

On Aug 31, 10:07 pm, Robert Kluin <robert.kl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've not had time to play with Python 2.7 to see how much threads help yet, but the scheduler needs work too.  I frequently see under 1 QPS / instance on low (sub 150ms) latency apps.  I may be way of the mark, but it seems like just getting that fixed would be a significant reduction in cost for us, and a better utilization of resources for Google.
>
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 20:44, "Ikai Lan (Google)" <ika...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jason,
>
> > I'm thinking a lot of the biggest apparent price increases come from the fact that Python 2.5 instances are single threaded, whereas Python 2.7 with multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to work with you to make this happen.
>
> > The billing email queues should be working now, so I want to encourage you especially to open a ticket via that email alias.
>
> > --
> > Ikai Lan
> > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
>

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[Srirangan]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:49 AM, johnP <jo...@thinkwave.com> wrote:

But Robert - you did not address the Root Question: why *should*
Google dial back the revenue knob?

The mode of operation seems to be:

1. Attract users with free / very low cost, cloud infrastructure

2. Force them to use Google specific APIs aka lock them in

3. Drastically increase prices giving users only a couple of weeks notice

4. Since they're locked in, and can't migrate their app in a couple of weeks, fleece them!

I do hope somebody from Google tells me that I am wrong! :-)

[Kaan Soral]

+1 robertk

I still have faith in Appengine, I think they should roll out
concurrency before, and make changes after that.

My daily cost increased from ~$22 to ~$55
And it is mostly cpu-hours/instance hours, I think ~0.1$ per hour is a
lot too at this stage, since python is not concurrent currently, and
rolling out the new price changes just makes things much much worse

I believe after python becomes concurrent, the costs will reduce
instead of increasing

What do Java people think about this?

On Sep 1, 8:07 am, Robert Kluin <robert.kl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've not had time to play with Python 2.7 to see how much threads help yet, but the scheduler needs work too.  I frequently see under 1 QPS / instance on low (sub 150ms) latency apps.  I may be way of the mark, but it seems like just getting that fixed would be a significant reduction in cost for us, and a better utilization of resources for Google.
>
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 20:44, "Ikai Lan (Google)" <ika...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jason,
>
> > I'm thinking a lot of the biggest apparent price increases come from the fact that Python 2.5 instances are single threaded, whereas Python 2.7 with multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to work with you to make this happen.
>
> > The billing email queues should be working now, so I want to encourage you especially to open a ticket via that email alias.
>
> > --
> > Ikai Lan
> > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
>

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

[de Witte]

Hi Ikai

I seriously hope that you did some kind of research before throwing out the new pricing model. You should be able to get these charts from the datastore by analyzing your -current- customers.

Regardless, the pricing is still extreme for thread enabled Java apps, especially if you do a lot of writes. I have an increase of 0.01 to 1.70$, this is a simple form app to register customers for downloading a package. The same can be done on any php server for 5$ a month. These kind of prices are not a big concern but if our big app (under development) will cost us 3000$ a month instead of 300$ then it is logical to move.

BTW Your email API is costing us 2000$ a month to send newsletters,... I seriously hope it is a mistake to set it to $0.01 / 100. Use a technical solution to restrict spammers, not pricing!

-Wendel

[Stefan Podkowinski]

Check out http://socket.io . A single ec2 instance should be able to serve thousands of concurrent channels easily. Especially with a asynchronous web server such as node.js (I'm using Tornado as it allowed me to port my python code easily). If you need message propagation among instances, you could use a message broker such as rabbitmq. Its probably a bit more work to setup your own solution based on that instead of using an external API but can hardly be beat when it comes to pricing. 

[Guillaume Laforge]

I've just wrote a blog post on the topic of pricing, and how it
affects one of my apps:
http://glaforge.appspot.com/article/google-app-engine-s-new-pricing-model

I had known about the new pricing model, but I was thinking my apps (a
blog and an online scripting console) with their low trafics wouldn't
really be hitting the new limits. I don't feel like paying 30-60 bucks
per month for each, that means that'd force me to move to the paid
model with $9/month (x2). That still sounds a bit expensive.

Really disappointed.

Guillaume

[Raymond C.]

Check the other posts in the thread.  Peoples using Java are seeing the similar dramatic increases as well.

And for those using Python, the preview price is having the instance charge reduced by 50% already.  

[Greg]

I'm waiting to see how multi-threading affects things. Appengine has
been a great platform so far, and I'd be very surprised if Google lets
it end up become more expensive than AWS or Azure.

Remember that with AWS (or any other VPS) you really need several
instances (in different regions) to replicate Appengine and Azure's
redundancy, and you need to manage both the servers and the systems
linking them. If you don't care about enterprise-scale scalability or
redundancy, you will certainly find cheaper options - Appengine is not
the appropriate platform for your site.

I also think it's a bit rich to talk about "bait and switch" and
"constantly changing billing". Appengine has been billed as a
technology preview all along, and now it's come into full production
they're setting realistic charges. You would have to be very naive to
assume you would get a free ride forever.

[Millisecond]

We're using Java and expect a 7x increase. With threading, and some
optimizations we should bring that down to 3 or 4x - I guess we're a
bit lucky, way less than a lot of people.

But, when you're over $1k/mo already and a small business, it's really
hard to take.

And more than the cost, the way this whole thing has been handled is
very odd. Will explore the options to go to another cloud provider,
but what a pain in the arse to move a TB of data and a handful of apps
with a collective ~50k LoC and 30 million reqs/day. Hopefully we can
find a reasonable path forward.

[Pieter Coucke]

I know that 20 cents a day is peanuts, but an increase from $ 0.2 to $ 8 a day for my app is just too high.

My app consists of bursts of messages in the queue that I want to be processed as fast as possible.  I could just set the rate to 100/s and never look back at it.  Now I need to disable my queue concurrency to avoid many instances running.

Like others in this thread, I thought the new billing wouldn't be as bad as expected.  I'm now trying java multi-threading again (hoping this issue is magically fixed: http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=4834) and see if that helps (I still see 5 instances running now).

I use Java and moved from EC2 to App Engine so I wouldn't have to worry about peaks and adding more servers (that was before Elastic Load Balancing and Autoscaling was introduced).  Also, I didn't want to bother with OS updates but want to focus on what I'm good at (development).  I'm willing to pay more for that ease of mind.  For me the strong point of App Engine is the ease of deploying/upgrading my apps.  EC2 provides better flexibility for controlling scaling, cdn, messaging and even a scalable simpledb, but at a much higher operational cost for me.  It's easier as a developer when the App Engine team has already decided for me on which platform, database, memcache, queue, ... to use.  The learning curve was sometimes steep (transactions for entities with different parents) but I'll try to remember this as a good way of learning to create scalable sites.

The strong point of app engine (I didn't have to care about the number of servers which makes it a real cloud solution) has gone with the new pricing.  EC2 micro instances are just $ 0.02 and give me 613 MB.  I already refactored my site for App Engine so each server can die at any moment, so why wouldn't I go to EC2 (simpledb, elasticache) now?

One of my clients asked me to create a (big) site on App Engine based on my advocacy, I will probably need to rethink that decision.

Sorry for the hard work of the App Engine team, but I'm really disappointed here.

(and apologies for the not so short answer)

[nischalshetty]

$0.01/ 100 is the same as amazons simple email.. 

[PanosJee]

We at BugSense see a x4 increase. There is space for optimization though and we hope that after the introduction of 2.7 and some refinements to keep it at x4. But we want to release a new API and we are already planning it to implement outside GAE and just use Datastore for period flashing.

We love the 0 admin cost but the future is unsure and we have seconds thoughts about porting everything off.

[Tom Newton]

I think this might be caused by your db indexes. Do you index a lot of attributes for various entities in your application?

[Bay]

I think you might have misunderstood the 9$/month. As I understand it, it basically means that if you want more than the free quotas you have to pay _at least_ 9$/month. But it sounds as if your usage charges exceeds this... therefore you _will_ be paying the 30-60 bucks per month...

I have no idea why Google decided to make the pricing so extremely high... I personally will have to reevaluate the whole thing...

[Bay]

I spend _a lot_ of time optimizing my app for very, very low cpu usage. 

Now this effort matters very little, as the vast amount of usage cost now come from the fact that the instances are running - and not how heavy their use of the CPU is...

I have a very hard time understanding the logic behind all the articles about optimisation that you've posted over the past 3 years...

[Raymond C.]

Yes we are waiting to see how multi-threading affect things, but we will be paying for the new charge THIS MONTH.

There are many free tool to monitor and scale your AWS automatically, which you can has complete control if you wish to tune them.  Linking them is a trivial setup, at least much easier than learning to work with the bigtable datastore on GAE.  If you have problem setting up AWS to scale, I dont think you are smart enough to use GAE well.

Not to mention that there are PAAS like Heroku which works like GAE without the ridiculous pricing and concurrency limitation.

Why lock yourself into GAE if you are targeting enterprise-scaling?  You still have faith in Google after this?  Every enterprise start as a small startup, and I think thats why Google started GAE.  But now they are now killing startup, losing the initial vision.

Ya your right, we are all naive and didn't get the meaning of "preview" as "we are going to charge you high once you have locked yourself in by becoming our tester".  Who would have used GAE if they knew this?

[GAEfan]

@bay... I don't think your efforts to optimize for CPU time are
wasted. As I understand it, the faster you can turn around a request,
the sooner a new request (within the same instance) can be served.
So, that should keep the number of open instances, and thus your
costs, down. Optimizing is very important here.

[GAEfan]

I am stunned by some of the service numbers reported here. 30 million
requests per day? Hundreds of CPU-hours per day? Terabytes of data
served per day? What kind of apps are these, and what is a reasonable
price to pay for that volume of service?

If you are serving millions of requests per day, you need to be
serving most of those through memcache.

Please help me understand... what type of app gets millions of
requests, hundreds of CPU-hours, terabytes of data per day? Is it
some free game or similar?

[Santiago Lema]

If anything this clearly shows one thing: most of us came here to
avoid doing system admin but now we're just at the mercy of random
policy changes and have to keep optimizing in a different way each way
pricing rules changes (or pay heavily).

I disabled all costly services (which thankfully weren't central to my
business) and I will definitely think twice about trusting Google
blindly. I can now hear my past self telling my previous employer's
customers that Google is trustable and that they should be worried
about using AppEngine, that they were in good hands.

I am glad I am not responsible for those customers anymore (and glad
their project failed for other reasons before having to face this
which would have killed it due to costs). I just don't want to be the
guy who told them to use this service but I am, and I deeply regret it.

[Rachel Gollub]

Same for me -- my main app (which is still in the testing and demoing phase) is going from $.31/day (which was already too high for the very occasional usage) to ~$2.50/day, and that's before it even has any users -- the unpredictability of the costs on launch is a big problem.  It's in Java, and all the costs are frontend instance costs.  I'm in the process of setting up my first AWS account.  I've been recommending GAE to everyone and using it for my apps for the last couple of years, but I'm going to have to do some serious cost comparison before investing any more time or money in it.

I like GAE a lot, otherwise -- please, Google guys, reconsider and make this more affordable?

-- Rachel

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.

[David]

I was forced to already start migrating to AWS/EC2 because there are
frequent errors almost daily because the datastore times out. Having
no control over it and Google not doing anything to help made me
decide to start the switch. But my pricing looks like it will
increase about 200-250%. Now I'm really glad I started the switch
now. BTW, I'm using java appengine and yes I have multithreading
enabled.

EC2 is really nice, but you need to be a bit more technical to get it
going. AWS Elastic Beanstalk makes it pretty easy though to just
deploy your war file and will be the easier transition for most GAE
java users.

[Ryan W]

Already left for new apps being developed. Moving to Sinatra/Rails on
Linode instances that a friend has. The existing apps I have on GAE
will migrate along that path over time or be shut down.

My total cost is going from $2/month to over $150/month and this is
all stuff I do on my own time out of my own pocket. Most of the
increase is the platform fee. Explain that one to my wife ;-)

[Ugorji Nwoke]

I have read this thread, and just wanted to add something.

We spent the better part of 2 months complaining in-house (ie within these google groups) about the pricing changes. What was the effect of our concerns? Nothing. There was only a nominal change to the pricing (making $9 a minimum spend instead of a levy). To make matters worse, this was rolled out without any thought about how it would impact us, the initial set of customers that started with GAE. We got an idea of the impact of the pricing changes with 2 weeks notice before they take effect, giving us no time to respond. 

I think it's time we moved our concerns out of Google Groups and into more public places (blogs, twitter, facebook, google plus, etc). Maybe a more public display of the way Google treats its developers would cause them to react differently.

I started a thread here: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/-9GOvh6dkvc/discussion

From my part, I have started the following:

• Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GoogleAppEngineNewPricingSucks/226690334046342
  
• Twitter Hashtag: #GoogleAppEngineNewPricingSucks http://twitter.com/#!/search/%23GoogleAppEngineNewPricingSucks

• Blog Post: http://blog.ugorji.net/2011/09/google-app-engine-new-pricing-sucks.html
• Google Plus Post: https://plus.google.com/115545205253432230935/posts/7oJGwFEgDgC

Please join and let's let our voices be heard. Let's all write our own blog posts about our concerns and impressions, and post links on twitter and facebook. Let's reshare our thoughts on Google Plus. That's the least we can do since Google has decided that they can pick and choose when to call on their "Do No Evil" slogan.

[thstart]

>Python 2.7 with multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to work with you to make this happen. 

I would like to modify my code right now. Do I need to tell you I am not happy in order to get access for more information?

--Constantine

[Will]

My bill would go from ~120$ per month to ~310$ per month. I'm using
Python, M/S datastore.

With this price, I won't get 99% guaranteed up time, because of M/S.
Oh, there are periodical M/S maintenance times, and I will be paying
for them.

As soon as I get time, I'll evaluate other options.

It's not only money, its faith, too.

Will

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Raymond C. <wind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not asking who is not happy with the new pricing (virtually most of GAE
> users).
> I am just asking who is FORCED to leave GAE because you cannot afford to
> keep running on GAE under the new pricing model.  Please (if possible) state
> the monthly price change as well.
> And what options you are considering?
>

> --
> 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/-/MDdHgnCrDecJ.

[Henrik Schack]

I'm also forced to leave with at least one of my apps :-(
So sad, I think the AppEngine setup is really cool.

/Henrik Schack

[Wesley C (Google)]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Srirangan <srir...@gmail.com> wrote:

The mode of operation seems to be:

1. Attract users with free / very low cost, cloud infrastructure

2. Force them to use Google specific APIs aka lock them in

3. Drastically increase prices giving users only a couple of weeks notice

4. Since they're locked in, and can't migrate their app in a couple of weeks, fleece them!

I do hope somebody from Google tells me that I am wrong! :-)

we understand what users are feeling, but i think you're mistaken on some of your points:

1. most Google products are free/low cost. App Engine was/is no exception. it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a time for users to "try before you buy." however, unlike a standard API, this is a distributed application execution platform, which is not exactly a low-cost service. 

many users are comparing App Engine to EC2, but that is not an accurate comparison... yes, both are fruits, but this is really apples vs. oranges. with EC2, *you* have to not only worry about your app, but also *everything else*, like elasticity/scale, operating system, database server, web server, load balancer, licenses, patches/upgrades, etc. i would argue that scalability is the most difficult and most expensive thing to build on your own.

your app can be slashdotted or tweeted by demi moore -- http://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2010/10/mobile-app-creators-talk-google-app-engine.aspx -- or perhaps you may need to build/host something on the scale of both the royal wedding blog and event livestream with traffic numbers that are mindblowing -- http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud.html ... *these* are the reasons for using App Engine. it was not meant as free/cheap generic app-hosting but to provide a premium service that's difficult to get elsewhere in the market. if you're just after the former, there are plenty of options for you.

2. this is directly related to #1. the company has spent many years and $$$ to build infrastructure that is "Google-scale," whatever you think that means, and you should have an idea. we've built a system that lets you leverage all the research and horsepower, but because it's all hand-built, you need to use our APIs to take advantage of it! after all, you can't get something for nothing, or can you? perhaps you *can*, if you're developing a Django app using Python.

the Django web framework traditionally relies on a SQL/relational DB, but the django-nonrel project -- http://allbuttonspressed.com -- enables Django apps to run on NoSQL/non-relational databases, including MongoDB and App Engine. (ports to Cassandra, Redis, SimpleDB, etc., are also underway.) what this means is that you can write a traditional Django app but can choose *where* you want to run it, whether it be on App Engine, or via traditional hosting (SQL or non). "lock-in" doesn't exist if you can move your app (and data) to/from App Engine any time you wish with just a change of your settings.py file! i've even written an article to help you port your app from webapp to Django if you wish -- http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/django-nonrel.html

that's on the client side as both the App Engine SDK as well as Django are both open sourced. if you wish to run you own App Engine-like *backend* compatible with the App Engine SDK & API, you can take a look at the TyphoonAE -- http://code.google.com/p/typhoonae -- and AppScale -- http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu -- projects. Google welcomes/supports such server-side projects -- http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/sponsors.html -- even if we can't release our proprietary backend. in fact, one of the AppScale team members has written about the project -- http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2010/10/research-project-appscale-at-university.html -- and has interned here at Google!

3. the price changes are a reflection of certain key facts:

a. Google as a company backing the entire platform as a product... instead of being cancelled, we're coming out of preview mode and become an official product! Google is not a non-profit company and cannot continue to operate services at a loss. our products, and my paycheck's gotta come from *some*where! coming out of preview means Google is committed to App Engine, and in turn, we're committed to our users.

b. this service costs the company significant resources... premium services like App Engine and YouTube require a lot of hardware and networking bandwidth. We serve more than 1.5 *billion* pages views a day across all applications!

c. we're adding an SLA and paid support -- http://code.google.com/appengine/sla.html plus a business-oriented ToS -- http://code.google.com/appengine/updated_terms.html -- with updates like alternative billing options. These help prove to enterprise that we mean business and provide a strongly-desired comfort level from larger customers.

d. most importantly, these changes were announced publicly during the second week of May during Google I/O -- see http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app-engine.html ... slightly more than a few weeks notice.

4. this is certainly not the intention, as stated above. We written up a FAQ -- http://code.google.com/appengine/kb/postpreviewpricing.html -- as well as provided guidance on adjustments that you can make to ease the transition to the new pricing model -- http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/managing-resources.html

we will continue to work with users over the coming months to help them with any questions or concerns they may have. please reach out to appengine_up...@google.com to send in your feedback and concerns.

hope this helps clear up some details,

-- wesley
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Core Python Programming", Prentice Hall, (c)2007,2001
"Python Fundamentals", Prentice Hall, (c)2009
   http://corepython.com

wesley.chun : wesc+api at google.com : @wescpy
developer relations :: google cloud products

[Angke Chen]

If all you said is true, then why the billing in the preview was so
cheap for 3 years?

BAIT AND SWITCH I call.

Angke

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.

[Cameron Corda]

Wesley,

The contact email shows up as "appengine_up...[at]google.com" in the web interface of groups.  Can you please spell out what it is?  This might make sense to put into the FAQ that you linked as well.

[Wesley C (Google)]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Wesley C (Google) <wesc...@google.com> wrote:

1. most Google products are free/low cost. App Engine was/is no exception. it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a time for users to "try before you buy." however, unlike a standard API, this is a distributed application execution platform, which is not exactly a low-cost service. 

many users are comparing App Engine to EC2, but that is not an accurate comparison... yes, both are fruits, but this is really apples vs. oranges. with EC2, *you* have to not only worry about your app, but also *everything else*, like elasticity/scale, operating system, database server, web server, load balancer, licenses, patches/upgrades, etc. i would argue that scalability is the most difficult and most expensive thing to build on your own.

here's a perhaps less-based comparison arguing a similar point:

http://groups.google.com/group/objectify-appengine/msg/807b35bfe098ce2c

[Wesley C (Google)]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Angke Chen <ang...@gmail.com> wrote:

If all you said is true, then why the billing in the preview was so
cheap for 3 years?

BAIT AND SWITCH I call.

 

it usually takes awhile for a product to bake before realizing that it is indeed viable to the market. we couldn't make it *completely* free, so a pay-as-you-go method worked well for Google and App Engine users alike. we also wanted to continue to attract users to platform. as i already mentioned in my previous message: "it was/is also in it's beta or preview period... a time for users to "try before you buy."

3 years isn't unreasonable for a preview period, and since we launched, we've kept on making improvements and adding new features to the platform -- new releases about every 6-10 weeks! yes, there have been a few small bumps along the way, but this is the way of the cloud. we're continuing to make the platform better for users, and hopefully some of you will see that it's still a worthwhile endeavor!

best regards,

[Will]

I understand what GAE team may be feeling after reading some very
harsh comments. My comments are:

1. I don't know how many in this discussion group believe Google is a
non-profit organization. My guess is none. I want to pay for GAE, and
I've been paying for more than a year, the recent monthly bills are
about 120$. Not particularly cheap, but I am happy because I believe
it is a very reasonable price.

2. If GAE is a premium service intending for serious business uses,
then say so at the very beginning. GAE was presented as a very cheap
(yet technically advanced with many advantages) clouding platform at
the beginning. If Google realizes it is a mistake, it should do
something more reasonable than this, especially to existing paying
customers. Maybe Amazon is as expensive as the new pricing model, but
I won't complain, because they state their prices very clearly
upfront, without 3 years of 'previewing'.

Will

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Wesley C (Google) <wesc...@google.com> wrote:

[Brandon Kolybaba]

We've built a number of apps on GAE over the past 3 years, some for our own use but many more for clients. Our costs are going up across the board by between 300% to over 1000%. Our clients are going to be furious and some will likely move off GAE, sadly I think for many it's really going to erode their confidence in Google moving forward. To be fair, I have thought for some time that GAE pricing was in need of an adjustment but the main problem with this type of a drastic change is the message it sends out to the IT decision makers in enterprise and the mid market organizations. They were already nervous because their IBM and Microsoft venders would create fear and doubt by suggesting things like prices would increase. I never in a million years world have expected such a drastic increase and in the past have even told our clients when asked about this very thing not to worry, I would say: "Google would never do that" but they did and it makes me look very foolish. 

To Wesley C (Google) and all the other folks who are trying to tell us this was announced in May, it's not exactly true now is it? Yes we were told that there would be changes (and at the time I thought that was a good thing as it was needed) but not enough detail was provided to us (until very recently) that gave us any indication of the magnitude of this change thus creating a very short window to inform our clients and make any adjustments necessary.

Brandon

[Raymond C.]

I think Google's stance has been quite clear after all the posts from Google's employees: GAE is now targeting enterprise only, i.e. companies that have plenty of money to spend on hosting web apps without the need to make money through itself, because their main revenue stream is from else where.  (tell me how royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud can make a turnover from its insane cost)

If you are a startup or companies that are planning to make a business by hosting an your applications on GAE, you are doing it WRONG. 

But then I wonder, which company is so stupid that having so much money to spend on hosting web apps on GAE, but dont bother to spend a tiny portion of it to hire a system admin to host applications on AWS given that it is:

- not locked in

- you are having all the controls

- you can use whatever you want

- you can do whatever you like (socket on GAE? long polling? event based server? push notification to iOS?)

- you know the price will only go down by time

- its a much larger community

[Will]

3 years 'preview' is rare and unreasonable in my opinion. If you are
not certain about the usage patterns and price model etc, you can do a
closed beta with selected customers. 3 years of experiment with this
public massive scale on real commercial products and serious paying
customers, I've never heard of, let alone a price increase with this
magnitude in the end.

Best,

Will

[scott]

This is a real bummer. I hear what you are saying and I see where Google is trying to take this, but I wonder how much adoption is going to suffer now that they have to compete with other similar service offerings at a similar price point. Even with all the good that comes with appengine, will new developers be willing to take on all of the GAE proprietary technologies and idiosyncrasies. Does Google have enough penetration in the app hosting market that they think this isn't an issue? 

After reading all of these comments, it feels like Google lost a little bit of cool today. It probably didn't help that developers were only given a couple of weeks to fully understand the impact and to react. There's a lot of panic on this forum.

[Tim Hoffman]

Hi Raymond

You will need more than a single sysadmin to make a system scalable enough on AWS

to deal with a royal-wedding-bells-in-cloud and even on AWS it will cost you a lot.

Not defending in anyway price changes, but you are seriously over simplifying what is required to build 

a large scalable system.

T

[Sergey Schetinin]

While I agree that some people do compare apples to oranges here, I
cannot accept your claim that such changes in pricing were to be
expected. There's no precedent for a change in pricing model like
that, and consider this: Gmail was in beta for a very long time and no
doubt is a losing article for Google, but would anyone even consider
to start charging a penny for every email once it was leaving beta?
(But hey, 5 free emails per day!) How would seemingly valid arguments
about developer salaries and sustainability and data portability hold
then?

I understand that the change needed to happen, but it was handled by
putting developers completely out of control and trying to blow it off
as not a big deal, "you were asking for this!" and all that. It should
have been done differently, you know it should have.

-Sergey

--
http://self.maluke.com/

[Raymond C.]

I know scaling has traditionally been not an easy task, but it is a lot easier on IAAS because not only you can scale out with just a few click, but you can also scale up using a powerful instance type.  I know quite a number of local small companies in person that are doing great business on AWS in terms of scaling with just a few powerful EC2 instances, that the price is much more effective than running on GAE because each EC2 instance can do a lot of things.

GAE was designed to only scale out to support a large number of users, which each instance can do very little thing (e.g. one process per instance at a time).  Thats why the original pricing model make sense because we dont have to care how GAE run our code.

Maybe listen to the guys from stackoverflow talk about scaling up is more convincing:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/12/my-scaling-hero.html

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/06/scaling-up-vs-scaling-out-hidden-costs.html

[Vinuth Madinur]

I'm sorry. What we tried is not exactly what we are going to be buying. Nobody had a clue what the real prices would look like and earlier speculations were shot down as ridiculous projections. 

What we tried was a platform where I dont have to worry about Instances and tuning the scheduler for costs. Tell me with a straight face that this is the same platform. 

Announcing it in May and taking 2 months to make a FAQ and still managing to keep everyone guessing isn't exactly preparing everyone for it. 

People repeatedly asked if GAE now wants to go enterprise only. There was no response. Now you lash out against them saying it's common sense.

People are still pointing out bugs with scheduler, and everyone has 2 weeks time after looking at their prices. And SLA only for HR apps. Single threaded Python runtime. Haha.

You should have written this mail back in May.

[Rajkumar Radhakrishnan]

Hi Google Folks,

For all these years, you had a Why App Engine page which lists the 2nd point as..

Free and Risk-free Development
Not only is creating an App Engine application easy, it's free! You can create an account and publish an application that people can use right away at no charge, and with no obligation. When you need to use more resources, you can enable billing and allocate your budget according to your needs. Detailed pricing for usage that has exceeded the free quota on our Billing page.

And in the billing page which is linked-to in that reason, CPU hours based billing was highlighted. While our apps were built for and optimized to work efficient on the platform for the given pricing, Google now changed the rules of the game because Google was not able to predict that the old model is unsustainable for nearly 3 years. After 3 years you realized that instance based pricing (actually, process-based) is the way to go.

While Google had earlier mentioned that the rates will increase only nominally and not multiple folds, you now say that Google App Engine is not meant to be an affordable and generic app hosting platform but is supposed to be a premium service (highlight added by me)... 

your app can be slashdotted or tweeted by demi moore....... or perhaps you may need to build/host something on the scale of both the royal wedding blog and event livestream with traffic numbers that are mindblowing ..... *these* are the reasons for using App Engine. it was not meant as free/cheap generic app-hosting but to provide a premium service that's difficult to get elsewhere in the market. if you're just after the former, there are plenty of options for you.

Sad to know that Google have used early adopters as testing resources for the "premium" platform.

I will not be leaving the platform.. I love the engineering effort Google has put into this. Just sad that I cannot make my app accessible for users looking for affordable database apps. I will have to look for a new domain name for my custom online database app builder over Google App Engine, "iFreeTools Creator" --> "iPremiumTools Creator" probably !!

And for those looking for more affordable options, I will have to look into one of the "plenty of options", for hosting their database applications.

Thanks & Regards,

R.Rajkumar

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Build online database applications, over Google App Engine.

iFreeTools Creator - http://creator.ifreetools.com

[Eric Jang]

GAE's new policies are really tough on open-source projects, especially projects run by individuals who have no funds but just want to get a good app out there for the sake of getting a good app out there.

[Tammo Freese]

Hello Wesley,

> d. most importantly, these changes were announced publicly during the second

> week of May during Google I/O -- seehttp://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app......

> slightly more than a few weeks notice.

well, the changes were maybe announced back then, but they were not
clear: Nobody outside of Google could compare the new price to the
current one. Lots of speculations were made, because we feared the
prices would skyrocket. Google's reaction back then as far as I
remember has been:
- The prices will go up somewhat, but not as high as you fear.
- Wait for the comparison of old vs new bills.

We did that. We waited. Now we can finally really compare the current
pricing to the new. That's with a few weeks notice. And if I interpret
the reactions right, the prices will skyrocket just as we feared.


Take care

Tammo

--------------------------------
Tammo Freese

FlockOfBirds UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Marie-Curie-Straße 1, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany

Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 114558
Sitz Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Tammo Freese

[Sylvain]

I've 2 apps that have a big increase, so one will be shutdown and for the other I will try to optimize it more.

But now, I've stopped all my current projects.

With this new pricing, developments will be driven by the costs.
I like to optimize my apps to make them better or faster but optimize them just to make them cheaper is a waste of time.

Sylvain

[Pieter Coucke]

To be fair to the App Engine team: I tried concurrency again and the issue http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=4834 seems fixed to me.  I was able to reduce my instances from 8 to 1 (sometimes 2) which will certainly reduce my bill *a lot*.  I can live with the price of one or two instances.

Only thing I see when I set the "max idle instances" slider to 1 (the lowest possible value), I see one instance serving all requests and one instance remaining idle without any requests.  I thought I could put the max idle instances to 0, but that option is not available.  When I set the slider to automatic, I have the impression I see less unused (I mean instances with one or two requests) instances popping up.  Maybe I should set the delay slider a bit higher than one second for this.

Taking into account the administrative overhead of EC2, I will remain on App Engine at the moment, although I hope prices for (small) App Engine instances will drop in the near future.

[Andrew Cassidy]

I'm leaving GAE as it has made a services I run for free just too expensive to run, and have negotiated a sponsorship deal at a VPS provider instead.

I do however have designs for a Django cluster with a working proof of concept. I just don't have the funding to do it.

[Gergely Orosz]

I understand Google's reasons behind the change of pricing. However the way you're going about it is completely amateur and the perfect example of how to alienate your customers. Here are the main reasons:

1. I am an early adopter. We've read the FAQs and docs when signing up and chose GAE because of the lucrative CPU time based billing, I learny Python only to be able to take advantage of this. This was the core of the service which you're now throwing out the window.

2. I trusted Google enough to build and scale on GAE - of course it was in preview but Gmail was in beta for 3 years and nothing changed after that went stable. How was I to assume that leaving preview will include dramatic changing in the service offered (CPU time) and pricing (now up 400% on my side). Oh, right, should have probably not put trust in Google.

3. Transition time: after 3 years of preview you've suddenly given us 2 weeks to adjust to the new environment... except the new environment still has faults (no Python 2.7 and the scheduler buggy). Today you've extended this by another week and a half. This is a completely unreasonable timeframe and the fact that even the GAE team doesn't have a set date implies that there's quite some chaos going on on your side as well.

4. Communication: all you've provided as guidance is a few liner pricing page, a blog post and a really short FAQ - all that barely go into any detail. Guess we'll have to figure out how to optimize for the new system. It's pretty clear from this form that either Google doesn't care about the few hundred percent of price increase that its customers will have to pay without investing heavily into optimizing their apps or that this was actually the motive (I remember Google started out as "Don't be evil" - but that was a while back).

I have been very much disappointed in how this situation is being (not) communicated and handled. I've completely lost the hard earned trust in Google. I'll try to optimize my app as much as I can and at the same point make steps to migrate to more viable platforms. This bitter lesson is also alienating me from using other Google developer platforms and services.

If you ask me you've just gained and tested a great enterprise cloud service (congratulations for that) and slapped all the early adopter developers using it in the face, degrading them to Guinea pig testers (congratulations for that as well). I would call this a short sighted move, but then again that's probably why I'm not running the GAE team.

[Tim Hoffman]

Just look at the stack in that example you posted.  It is a non trivial excercise and this guys has gone in deep.

How many people are willing too or can..

And it doesn't talk about how robust it is.  Its not a lot of fun performing rolling upgrades of cluster of 

rdbms backends whilst keeping everything up. How you do can be very dependant on the application structure

It takes training, and resources.  Yep it's a lot easier if you can fling virtual machines (ec2, vmware etc) around the 

place, but it does require careful design.  

The article doesn't say how many years it took to get it right, or what sort of failure rates he encountered during the early years.

Rgds

Tim

[polyclefsoftware]

I'm an indie Android app developer, and in early 2010 I decided to work on a multiplayer crossword board game ala Scrabble or Words With Friends, since no such game existed yet on the platform. I worked with a friend who handled the server side. We decided it would be cool to use Java GAE as the back end for the game. The app, called WordWise, was the first game of its type to the Android Market. We also developed an iPhone version and were the first iPhone-Android cross-platform game of this type to market. For about a year, the game did reasonably well financially. Not WWF success, but enough to help me continue to work as an indie app developer.

In February of this year, Words With Friends released their Android version and our revenue cratered. We use a mixed model of free with ads (including Google AdSense/AdMob) and paid. Revenue dropped off a cliff in February, but were still eked out a modest profit from the game. Under the current GAE pricing scheme, our server costs are $30-50/mo. The app now generates about $150/mo. in revenue. At its peak it was generating thousands of dollars per month in revenue, but those days are gone.

However, we still have a dedicated user base. The app still has over 200K active installs. Under the new GAE pricing scheme, our server costs are going up about 7x. Right now we're essentially breaking even, but maintaining the environment for current users who continue to enjoy playing the game. Under the new scheme, we're going to have to shut everything down. We can break even, but we can't run at a loss. Under the new scheme we'd be paying $200-300/mo. in fees, while the app only generates about half that in revenue. 

I'm going to get a lot of angry emails, and since I publish a substantial catalog of other apps and games, this will likely hurt my reputation and potentially impact revenue across the board, but what else am I supposed to do?

I've been a huge advocate of Google and its products. One of the reasons we chose GAE, despite its quirks, was that it seemed like a perfect fit with indie Android gaming. Every Android phone requires a Google account, which could be used for authentication to the GAE server. This policy change by Google is effectively killing our game and nullifying any chances of us using it in the future. Despite the announcement at I/O, I still perceived GAE as a platform suitable for a wide range of developers, from indies like me up to large-scale businesses. It's very clear now that's not the case. I've always had a perception that Google cared about the indie developer community, but I'm honestly baffled by this move. 

Yes, Google is a for-profit company, but since their inception, their strategy has often been to offer great free products, initially at as loss-leaders, to encourage adoption. They are then able to integrate their core business, advertising, into those products, and upsell premium versions for enterprise. Are Google reps seriously suggesting that new products such as Google+ are generating direct revenue right now? By pricing out hobbyists, indies, and other small companies from GAE, the initial revenue lost will likely not even be noticed by Google. However, you will have lost an enormous amount of good will and street cred among the developer community. 

You could have handled this in a much more sensible way. Why not grandfather in apps under the old pricing platform that have been on the platform for something like at least six months? You're citing apps that have enormous traffic, but what this new policy is going to do is effectively squash a bunch of smaller apps. Why not keep apps under the old pricing scheme if they qualify as "non-enterprise", with moderate-to-low usage? You're telling me Google wouldn't be willing to absorb the negligible cost of providing infrastructure to smaller projects in order to encourage adoption and continue to foster good will among the dev community? And you could still hike up the costs on the big apps, though something tells me even that's going to backfire.

As someone else said, Google lost a lot of cool over this.  

[Brandon Kolybaba]

I think it's a misnomer that enterprises make buying decisions differently form smaller companies. We work with a lot of large firms (1,000+ employees) They are very cost sensitive and make decisions the same way everyone else does. This behavior scares them as much as not more then smaller organizations who are more agile. The biggest fear a large company has is that they will adopt solutions like GAE and then see the prices increase with little to no warning. I can tell you first had that this has been a major concern for our big clients in the past. Now that it's been established that large price fluctuations are a possibility with GAE I doubt any of our large clients will consider further adoption.

[Joshua Smith]

If I were in your position, I'd send all your users an email explaining what you just told us in this message.  Heck, just use that message -- it was really well written.

Then let them decide what's next.  Set up a google docs survey.  You might be able to switch to a donation model, or a freemium model of some type.  Or even just increase the price of your app by $1 and require them to go buy the new version to keep playing.

I had a game company with a massively multiplayer social shoot-em-up game back in the 1990s.  We eventually figured out that we couldn't make the business end of it work, so we shut it down.  The players eventually took over operation of the game, and it's still alive today.  Engaged networks of people can really surprise you.

Good luck!

-Joshua

[Robert Kluin]

Wow, this is very well written. You should make this a blog / G+ /
whatever post.

I also agree that it is quite funny, at IO they were touting Android +
GAE. From what I've seen apps with many lightweight requests are
getting killed with the new pricing; apps with super heavy requests
are seeing more modest 2 or 3x increases. Basically exactly the
opposite of what GAE used to be good for.

Robert

> --
> 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/-/5yqg0V4cdTMJ.

[GR]

I am also an Android app developer... gae seemed like the perfect choice as a back end for my apps. My most successful app is free and ad supported... right now it just covers the old pricing...

The new pricing means I will have no choice but to shut down my back end (there is no way to make your app for-pay once it is free)... resulting in hundreds and hundreds of one star ratings... and a reputation that cannot be recovered from.

[saidimu apale]

I'm in exactly the same position as Peter Petrov. I moved months ago once it was clear from Greg that there was no going back, and I'm never coming back to GAE. The constraints, prior to the pricing changes, were already painful and the trade-off wasn't always attractive. The new pricing was the straw that broke this camel's back.

Luckily there have been a host of new Python PaaS providers since then, I'm now with DotCloud.com and couldn't be happier. The biggest advantage is that they operate on a standard stack so there is very little lock-in.

Adieu GAE.

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Peter Petrov <ones...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've already left GAE a couple of months ago. I.e. immediately after Greg replied to me that new pricing will come into effect before Python 2.7 and multithreading. My app has short bursts of thousands QPS, and without multithreading it was clear to me that for an unknown period I'd have to pay a very high price. Today's posts here prove that I was right.

Another reason was the insanely high price for instance hours - more than 10x the industry average. Sorry Google, but your servers are not made of gold. Paying that price is simply stupid, and I'm not stupid.

I've moved to a small VPS cluster at RackSpace Cloud. I rewrote my entire app as a Node.js application (previously was GAE/Python using Kay). Very happy so far, I don't think I'll ever return to GAE.

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Raymond C. <wind...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not asking who is not happy with the new pricing (virtually most of GAE users).

I am just asking who is FORCED to leave GAE because you cannot afford to keep running on GAE under the new pricing model.  Please (if possible) state the monthly price change as well.

And what options you are considering?

--

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/-/MDdHgnCrDecJ.

To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
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.

[zdravko]

better than shutting down is to do to your users what google did to
you, with an explanation of why you have to suddenly charge them

[Raymond C.]

Thx for introducing DotCloud.com

[Jacob Stoner]

Count me amongst the people leaving.  My bill will go from $0.03 per day to $6.15 per day.  I've been using GAE as an imaging caching and protection service for my ecommerce activities. It's worked marvelously, but it certainly isn't worth nearly $200 per month.  Thats a 20,500% increase!!!  May app is very computationally expensive, now I will find a new solution using Amazon EC2.

[thstart]

>I am stunned by some of the service numbers reported here. 

I am wondering too. These are huge numbers and if they are true there must be a way to charge for them.  30 million requests per day? This cannot be free.

[Jonathan B]

Ever since Larry Page become CEO, Google has got worse and worse and worse. From UI changes for users, to this.

I can understand wanting to raise the pricing, but why an entirely new model that changes the cost so variably between users. Why didn't you just lower the free limit on the old pricing model?

As for your "preview" and "beta" labels that is a load rubbish. Everyone knows how weakly Google uses labels like those. (e.g., A lot of complaints from Apple developers when users see the words "beta" or "preview" on your services then buy a Developer account to get new software and then complain about the bugs, not realising what beta or preview mean)

Have you been making a loss on GAE or something? What happened to don't be evil? You won't admit to it being baiting and switching, but it has had exactly the same effect.

Why are the changes so drastic???

[Raymond C.]

>30 million requests per day?  Hundreds of CPU-hours per day?  Terabytes of data 
served per day? 

Which messages you are referring too?

[Raymond C.]

No one is saying we should not be charged.  The discussion is: are those number reasonable?

[BW]

I love Google and app engine was the best choice for our free iphone applications (over 100K users in our GAE databases), but now our costs are jumping from $0.20 to $4.51 per day and we simply can't afford it.  We don't have the resources to port everything to a new backend (we are both grad students) and because of this are forced to shut down all of our applications.  We couldn't have anticipated this high jump in CPU time cost.  While I'm sure we could optimize the code to use the new pricing model it takes time we don't have and who knows where the next hike will be.  I'm sure this was done to more accurately model the cost of the resources consumed; however, that is something that could have been better expressed earlier in the 3 year relationship we had with GAE (we were using this before billing was even available).

[Raymond C.]

The articles are not here to say HOW TO SCALE.  I was just saying scaling up is much easier and effective than scaling out.  You can scale up with just a few clicks on IAAS like AWS, without ever considering scaling out, to support a heavy site.

GAE can only does scale out, because its how its designed.  But saying GAE can scale while the other platforms can't do it easily is just wrong.

[Tim Hoffman]

So if it is so easy to scale up and out with these other solutions, why are you still here?

Why did you even start with appengine?

What value you do you see in appengine vs these other IAAS platforms?

I really would like to know.  You seem to only ever have negative comments about appengine at the moment and don't seem to

provide much in the way constructive suggestions for people to help them improve what they are doing with appengine.

T

[Raymond C.]

I started on GAE because of the same reason of you (PAAS without all the managing stuff).  Why I see GAE negatively now is that the price is over expensive and the pricing model is wrong (or at least not like when I started using it).  Isn't that obvious?  And there are no conflict between the two.  Why you think raising negative comments under this situation is wrong? 

We are not someone who just came in and say "you sucks" to Google.  We are the customers and testers who have been using and helped GAE from the early days till today.

We are providing no constructive suggestions?  We have been doing it all over the forum in the past few months.  Or you just think "saying sth good about the new pricing" is constructive suggestions?

What I am doing here (and maybe many other who are raising concerns now) is because we want Google to change their mind by realizing the problems that the change is producing.  Of course we will go if Google insists to use the new pricing models and if it dont fit us, but at least we are still trying before it is too late.

[Tim Hoffman]

Raymond

Unfortunately I don't see a lot of postings detailing what the real alternatives to appengine are, what 

certain size traffic sites and data sets would actually cost to run on these alternatives.

May be you could provide a bit of an over view of your apps design, what its costing you, 

how much it would cost to move elsewhere and run it on some other platform and what it would really cost to run 

on that platform. What are the strengths and weaknesses of these other platforms are, so that others in this community 

can get some guidance.

Lots of people are throwing around statements like it is cheaper to run on heroku or AWS, but just not a lot of hard facts 

at the moment.  

A quick look at Heroku tells me a single dyno + 20GB shared DB will cost $15 per month, and 2 dynos + 20GB 

shared DB is $50 per month.  Now I know nothing about Heroku but thats what their pricing page is telling me.

 (Correct these figures if they are wrong)

Which all suggests to me that Heroku would cost about the same to host a small appengine app.

Rgds

Tim

[Joshua Smith]

I'm not leaving GAE, but in the comments on a RWW article, I saw that the AppScale folks ( http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/ ) seem to be trolling for customers.  (I mean trolling in the fishing sense, no the usenet sense.)

I'm sure those people must be on these mailing lists.  Perhaps one of them could speak up to how turn-key their solution is at this point?

I wonder if they've run any big apps like CDN-in-a-box on AWS, to see how the costs and performance compare.

--
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/-/4uORTgZzKBUJ.

[Roch Delsalle]

I'm not leaving yet but I'll if the scheduler doesn't let me choose how many Instances I want.

[Pascal Voitot Dev]

Roch do you see some pbs with your app and the new instances model?

Pascal

[Johan Euphrosine]

You should be able to control the number of instances by using new
performance settings in "Application Settings > Performance":

"Min Pending Latency" allows you to maximize existing instance usage
over new instance creation at the expense of potential increased
latency:
The scheduler will rather have the request waiting for at least "Min
Pending Latency" in the pending queue if no instance is available,
rather than starting a new instances for handling it.

"Max Idle Instance" allows you to minimize the amount of Idle instance
the scheduler keeps around for handling traffic spikes, and enforce
that you don't get billed for more than "Number of Active Instances +
Max Idle Instances".
The scheduler will rather kill existing instance down to "Max Idle
Instance" rather than keeping them alive at the expense of an
increased amount of instance startup/shutdown cycle.

Hope that helps.

--
Johan Euphrosine (proppy)
Developer Programs Engineer
Google Developer Relations

[Andrius A]

I am crying and leaving as well..

the costs jump from $12 to $180 per month is ridiculous. I built a platform which was cheap to host in GAE and was selling it to customers over the year. Its CPU and Datastore intensive (does request every second by using cron and task queue all the time).

Now with this price jump I cant keep my demo site running and sell it to customer because its to expensive!

[Roch Delsalle]

Yes, Thanks for your explanations,

What If I want my app to remain under a fixed amount of instances whatever spike happen ?

[Simon Knott]

Hi Johan,

The problem seems to be that a lot of people would like to be able to specify that there are no idle instances.  i.e.  Max idle instances is zero.  These are small applications whose current QPS will not require more than one instance; in fact the owners would like to ensure that the scheduler doesn't spin up an idle instance for no reason, for cost control.

Additionally some of the threads over the last few days have shown cases, especially involving task queues, where the Max pending latency isn't being honoured.  I believe production issues have been raised, although I'd have to dig through the threads to find out what those were.

Cheers,
Simon

[Johan Euphrosine]

Bumping Min-Pending latency should instruct the scheduler to wait for
existing instances to be available rather than spinning an additional
instance.

[Alex Popescu]

I've been running 7 small Python apps on GAE. Here's the current status:

1. from $0 -> $2/day => from $0 to $60/month

2. from $0 -> $3.5/day => from $0 to $105/month

3. from $0 -> $3/day => from $0 to $90/month

4. from $0 -> $13/day => from $0 to $390/month

5. I've closed one application immediately

6. the other 2 seem to remain at $0

Total: from $0 => $645/months

While I was prepared to start paying something, this is well beyond anything I imagined. At this price I'd be able to get a managed private server with  2 quad-core CPU, 8GB RAM, RAID disk and all these apps would run faster than anything I've seen on GAE (I've tested this in the past). Actually I'd even save $100/month.

As you can expect the decision is clear: shutting everything down and moving away.  

[Johan Euphrosine]

A feature request has already been filled to be able to set
Max-Idle-Instance to 0:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5764

This issue has been escalated to the engineering team, and I will
update the bug report once I have any update from them.

I found the following issue related to *Min* pending latency and Tasks
queue in the public issue tracker:

"Allow tasks or task queues to hint scheduler about execution priority"
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=5773

Were you referring to this ?

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Simon Knott <knott...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Johan,
>
> The problem seems to be that a lot of people would like to be able to
> specify that there are no idle instances.  i.e.  Max idle instances is
> zero.  These are small applications whose current QPS will not require more
> than one instance; in fact the owners would like to ensure that the
> scheduler doesn't spin up an idle instance for no reason, for cost control.
>
> Additionally some of the threads over the last few days have shown cases,
> especially involving task queues, where the Max pending latency isn't being
> honoured.  I believe production issues have been raised, although I'd have
> to dig through the threads to find out what those were.
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>
> --
> 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/-/GSng3seAI1UJ.
> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>

--
Johan Euphrosine (proppy)
Developer Programs Engineer
Google Developer Relations

[Simon Knott]

Hmm, the first one looks good.  I was certain that someone mentioned that the scheduler / min-pending latency issue had been raised as well.  I'll dig through the posts this evening to try and locate it.

From my own experience, I'm got the following setup for a Java H/R application:
Min idle instances: 1
Max pending latency: 15s
Multi-threading enabled

However, on hitting my app I'm seeing the following scenario:

1) Zero instances
2) Page loaded with 3 ajax calls
3) 2 instances started

Looking at the logs, I'm getting the following:

First request: Triggers a loading request.
Second request: Pending_ms=5250
Third request: Pending_ms=4655.  Triggers a loading request

Is there any reason the second instance is started, given that the total load time for the page is just over 10 seconds, well below the 15s threshold?

[Roch Delsalle]

Thanks I have stared the first issue.

[Simon Knott]

Hmm, got the min and max the wrong way round on the idle instances and pending latency settings!

Also, the production issue I was referring to seems to be a bit more generic and is issue 5765

[Johan Euphrosine]

Hi Simon,

It is difficult to says without taking a look at your application
console, given how long it takes to load a new instance for your
application, the scheduler might "guess" that it will likely take more
than 15s to handle all incoming requests without spinning a new
instance.

Feel free to fill a production issue if you want us to investigate
closer the behavior of your application:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/entry?template=Production%20issue

> --
> 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/-/9yWNQyYCbfUJ.

[Johan Euphrosine]

Yes, this issue has already been escalated to the engineering team.

> --
> 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/-/0KJT2BMKGukJ.

[Simon Knott]

Thanks Johan. 

I'll raise an issue, if only to get someone to say "This is working as intended" or not!

[Simon Knott]

I've raised issue 5787 with further information.

Thanks again for the prompt responses.

[will]

I too have an app designed and being developed with the Channel API.
Seeing the new pricing plan, GAE is a no-go. It will be redesigned to
run in AWS.

My plan is to use Node.js for push. A single Node.js can support
~100K channels. Run multiple Node.js processes for further scaling.
Run a Membase(or Memcached?) as a PubSub registry to map a channel id
to the Node.js server. Publishing to a channel involves looking up
the Node server servicing the channel from Membase, and submit the
publishing data to it. The Node server then turns around and push the
data to the browser.

Node.js is pretty lightweight. I plan to try out with a micro EC2
instance ($12/mon for reserved), and see how far it can go.


On Aug 31, 10:00 pm, Richard Arrano <rickarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I can tell on the new billing page, it says 100 under "Free
> Quota" for "Channels Created" and then a rate of $0.01 for every 100
> more channels created. I could be misinterpreting it, but it seems
> clear cut.
>
> PubNub also looks like a great alternative to Channels, I'll have to
> look at the two and weigh them. On a related note, if my application
> is written for webapp and Django, does anyone know if it would be a
> relatively simple task to set up Django/webapp on EC2 and transition
> my code? Obviously I'd have to change the database to use SimpleDB,
> but again, how arduous would this task be?
>
> -Richard
>
> On Aug 31, 8:05 pm, Srirangan <sriran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>  I did a double take when I realized the new price was per hundred
> > >> rather than per thousand,particularly when
> > >> channels expire after two hours and need to be re-created.
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't this charge apply only after you exceed
> > your free quota or 8000 odd created channels per day?

[xorbit]

What bugs me about this change is that after three years of preview
with one billing model, GAE comes out of preview with a very different
billing model, and gives developers virtually NO time to adjust their
apps for it. The difference of the new billing model to developers
cannot be overstated--it is huge.

I admit I cannot be considered a prime customer for Google: my app is
a backend for a small Android app called "Rate This Spot", which just
implements a rating system for geographic areas. I developed it in my
spare time. I spent A LOT of time optimizing the CPU load of it. In
the end, I came up with a system that aggregates ratings in memcache
and a cron job that commits them to the data store. Very low CPU
usage, and even though volume is low, it was designed to scale and
still cost very little if volume increased.

Now the billing model changes and it turns out my app is designed
completely wrong for the new model. My cron job keeps the instance
alive too much and I will end up having to pay for an app that hardly
gets any traffic and makes me no money. Turning down the cron rate
will increase the risk of data loss of memcached values before I can
store them. The ridiculous minimum 15 min billing time forces me to
really crank my cron rate down to make any difference. When I
designed this thing I had assumed that by the time I'd actually have
to start paying, I would have enough users to be able to monetize this
in some way. But now I actually have to hope that the app doesn't
become popular, because if it does, I will likely have to shut it down
because it will cost me too much before it reaches any critical mass.
My optimizations have been pointless and very counterproductive. I
would have to rewrite it for the new model and I don't have any spare
time to do that right now.

Google has been evaluating over the past 3 years how people use GAE so
they can make money. That's fair. But at the same time, during these
3 years developers have been pouring a lot of effort in learning how
the system works, which knobs to turn to make efficient use of the
environment, and yes, how to design their app so as to minimize cost
and maximize profit. Now the rules are turned on their heads. Early
adopters are punished because by now they have deployed countless
large apps that are mis-architected and mis-optimized and will
suddenly cost them much more than anticipated. Developers feel
trapped and betrayed--they signed up for one thing, and now they are
offered something else instead. They made their decisions based on
data: cost of CPU usage, API calls, etc. I know I spend many hours
benchmarking, calculating, extrapolating. It seemed like something I
could do with minimal risk. If it didn't take off, I would not loose
any money. If it did, I would have enough breathing room before I'd
need to find a way to make it pay. Now I don't know what will
happen. I'll probably end up paying money without making any. That's
just what I didn't want to happen.

I for one am abandoning GAE, unless something drastically changes with
the new billing. I should have known buying into a proprietary system
was a bad idea. It always is. My Rate This Spot app will likely stay
on GAE, unless it ends up costing me too much money. I was working on
a different project on GAE, but I am going to do it on a proper open
source system instead, using node.js and CouchDB. Much safer.

It's sad: I used to be really excited about GAE. Here was a system
that seemed to be aimed at people like me: people with ideas that can
build something in their spare time, and maybe see it grow into
something big. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Maybe I
don't feel like I'm abandoning GAE. Instead, GAE seems to have
abandoned me.

[nick]

one of my java apps (that doesn't bring any revenue) went from $0.05/
day to $2.50/day, which although not a large in absolute terms..its a
50x increase. :(

i will probably have to leave appengine for this app.

On Sep 1, 1:07 am, Robert Kluin <robert.kl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've not had time to play with Python 2.7 to see how much threads help yet, but the scheduler needs work too.  I frequently see under 1 QPS / instance on low (sub 150ms) latency apps.  I may be way of the mark, but it seems like just getting that fixed would be a significant reduction in cost for us, and a better utilization of resources for Google.
>
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 20:44, "Ikai Lan (Google)" <ika...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jason,
>
> > I'm thinking a lot of the biggest apparent price increases come from the fact that Python 2.5 instances are single threaded, whereas Python 2.7 with multiprocessing will serve more computing per instance. We're going to work with you to make this happen.
>
> > The billing email queues should be working now, so I want to encourage you especially to open a ticket via that email alias.
>
> > --
> > Ikai Lan
> > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
>
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Jason Collins <jason.a.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are going from $5,400/month to $26,500/month (Python) - and this is
> > only one of our apps.
>
> > We are going to work hard to optimize our application because we
> > really like App Engine, but failing that, we may have to move
> > elsewhere.
>
> > j
>
> > On Aug 31, 7:17 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)" <ika...@google.com> wrote:
> > > Hey guys, just some data collection: are you guys running Python?
>
> > > --
> > > Ikai Lan
> > > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> > > plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai
>
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM, joakime <joakim.erdf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We are moving 22 servers away.
> > > > Already started the process to move to AWS.
> > > > Our costs went up 2800% under the new pricing.

>
> > > > --
> > > > 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/-/yvS-RalUAasJ.

>
> > > > To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > 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 google-a...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>

> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.

[Tapir]

On Sep 2, 1:21 pm, xorbit <xorbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What bugs me about this change is that after three years of preview
> with one billing model, GAE comes out of preview with a very different
> billing model, and gives developers virtually NO time to adjust their
> apps for it.  The difference of the new billing model to developers
> cannot be overstated--it is huge.

The new price model is intended to charge your simultaneous
instances.
Even if you have enough time, you still can't change it much by
adjusting your app.
The 24 free hours quota is not that much as it looks.
The whole new ugly price model is caused by google can't launch a
fully and ready
for using app instance quickly. This is the principle reason for the
current GAE's
embarrassed circumstance.

[michael]

purely speculation but I'd be willing to bet...

• App Engine was close to going the way of Wave, the free translate API and Labs.
  
  
• someone/some group pushed back hard for one last chance to make it profitable with the new pricing model
  
  
• 2011 4th quarter is the make|break time for app engine. If it doesn't become profitable right away with the new pricing then the 3 year clock will start ticking, probably no later than the 2nd quarter of 2012
  
  

I think it's unfair to cast the GAE team as being party to any kind of bait and switch strategy. From the outside looking in it appears the culture is changing from being engineering/ideas driven to being business/profit driven and GAE is just trying to survive the transition. As a very early GAE adopter, promoter and someone who built a thriving business on Google API's I hope they get lucky and make it.

[Rohan Chandiramani]

Perhaps we could specify how long certain requests take to help the scheduler?

[Benjamin]

I'm concerned that since my site (www.nimbits.com) doesn't make any
money right now, the new prices may kill it before it reaches critical
mass. That is, I have a business model similar to twitter: i need a
lot of users feeding me a lot of data before mining that data becomes
valuable - but people aren't going to want to pay to feed me their
data.

I'd really appreciate guidance from google on the best ways to
monetize an app, or pass costs on to the users.

I'm quite skilled at java / GAE btw, and do freelance consulting - if
anyone needs assistance in tuning their apps to run at lower costs
feel free to drop me a line.

- Ben

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

Hi Benjamin,

Glad you're offering your skills for consultations. That'll help a lot of folks who are looking for hands-on support.

In terms of monetization, that's tough. There are a few businesses that are able to totally bootstrap their way to profitability, but I think we have to be careful when reading these stories to not believe that every single business can be like this. For instance, Google itself was losing lots of money every year and took several years to become profitable. I can't even imagine how to deal with losses on that scale. I come from a family of restauranteurs, and it would often take years to recoup the initial purchase of a lease for a physical location. It blew my mind that you needed to borrow money for the right to *rent* a place, but it gave me perspective on how difficult it is to launch a business.

That being said, we still believe the new App Engine pricing is favorable to small businesses. For tips, there's another thread on this group about how some people are able to generate lots of revenue using AdSense:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-appengine/b80ifEOmRAc

Comparing App Engine to a dollar VPS isn't a fair comparison, and many of the pricing comparisons to infrastructure-as-a-service providers such as EC2 in this thread are flawed. 

Do know that we are paying attention to posts where people make comparisons between App Engine and other platform based services such as Heroku, Cloud Foundry, dotcloud, and others. I'm pretty good at setting up production servers, and I spent part of this weekend helping a friend set up a production cluster running Postgres, Tomcat, Nginx, an NFS mount, Monit, Munin, a deploy/rollback script, basic iptables, HAproxy, etc, and it was not trivial. One of the really great things about virtualization is that all of this can be stored in an image and replicated once it's done, but managing that many moving parts really isn't easy at all, even after it's set up. I wrote a doc about all the things I've seen go wrong and how he can deal with it once his stuff is launched, but even I can't prepare him for every possible contingency. Everything breaks in ways you don't expect (this is also true of our stuff, BTW, I'm not bagging on open source). Yes, he'll have to wake up at 2am and fix things in the middle of the night.

We're trying to think of a way to make App Engine work well for education and non-profits. Stay tuned.

I'm personally bummed that we couldn't make things work for you with the new pricing. App Engine isn't going away, but we do want to encourage everyone to really do an evaluation of alternative stacks before diving all in, because, from my personal experience, there are no silver bullets. When I get a chance, I'll throw together a quick blog post about some ways to export/import your data since we haven't solved that one particularly well yet.

--

Ikai Lan 
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine

plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai

[Gabor Lenard]

This sounds quite plausible to me. :(

If that's the case then I also hope that this interesting initiative called GAE could survive.

[Gregory D'alesandre]

The email address is appengine_up...@google.com and that's a good idea.

Greg

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Cameron Corda <cco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wesley,

The contact email shows up as "appengine_up...[at]google.com" in the web interface of groups.  Can you please spell out what it is?  This might make sense to put into the FAQ that you linked as well.

--
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/-/MjZ6N9Bks1wJ.

[James Singh]

Yes, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH, BAIT AND STITCH... , BAIT AND STITCH!!!

Since Google didn't have quality cloud computing server of their own that can stand aside Amazon EC2, they played all this BAIT AND STITCH business game.

I'm moving on to EC2. Sayonara GAE. 

[Magnus]

So apparently this thread has become whining session.

If your web venture doesn't make enough money to cover the new hosting costs, Google probably did you a service by forcing you to think about something that actually will. 

It's pretty refreshing and encouraging to think that Google will start competing properly with other cloud vendors, rather than forcing them out of the race by giving valuable resources away for free.

And no - I'm not going to switch from Google app engine. I love the simplicity and for what I use it for it'll be worth the money.

[Vinuth Madinur]

I'm not moving away. But I'm porting a part of my application over to S3. I can't start paying $9 a month for storing 2.3 GB of data while all else is within quota limit. I prefer S3's billing of pay for what you use.

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

It hurt my heart to let that last post through (it was a first time poster).

--

Ikai Lan 
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine

plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai

--

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/-/WX7pVPuI2rUJ.

[Will]

Ikai,

It makes me feel sad that you intended to block the previous post.
What he said isn't particularly rude or offensive, just expressing his
feelings, though in a childish way. Whould you block it had it said
something positive about GAE, in a similar manner?

I've been using GAE for almost 3 years, and I feel the similar
regarding the new pricing mode. I can feel that the GAE team works
hard and goes extra miles to help fellow developers cope with the
change, but that doesn't change the core fact.

My estimated bill does become lower substantially after following
guidances posted here, but still a very significant increase.

Regards,

Will

[Ikai Lan (Google)]

You misunderstood. We don't block posts unless there are very good reasons (spam, someone's privacy or safety is at risk, etc). I never intended to blocking it. 

--

Ikai Lan 
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine

plus.ikailan.com | twitter.com/ikai

[glimmung]

Hi Will,

On Sep 9, 8:40 pm, Will <vocalster....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It makes me feel sad that you intended to block the previous post.
>

In all fairness that's not what Ikai said - he merely said that it
made his heart hurt. Nothing was blocked, and there is no suggestion
that that was ever an option.

I'm a relatively new user of GAE - I've been tinkering for a while and
have two simple apps under development, and at this point I have no
clue what the impact of the new pricing will be - but I'm concerned,
of course. I do thank my lucky stars that I'm using a framework that
gives me other deployment options OOTB, but I'm going to stick with
'Plan A' until I know the costs.

However, while Google have clearly left a lot of developers in the
lurch by changing the fundamental basis of their pricing, and have
made a bad situation worse by fluffing the timing and communication,
to suggest that it was a premeditated act of bad faith seems rather
silly to me. In Ikai's place, I'd be uncomfortable too.


--

PhilK