New Channel API pricing scheme

[Chiguireitor]

Hi all, i was just reading the new pricing scheme and came along a little tidbit that made me feel a little uncomfortable: The $9/mo plan has a limit of 100 channels opened simultaneosly and doesn't have a way to pay for more channels simultaneosly opened!!! Is this true? are we going to be limited to 100 concurrent channels on paid apps with no room to grow up?

[Timofey Koolin]

No http://www.google.com/enterprise/appengine/appengine_pricing.html

100 channel per day - free limit, you can pay for additional channels.

2011/7/2 Chiguireitor <johnvill...@gmail.com>

Hi all, i was just reading the new pricing scheme and came along a little tidbit that made me feel a little uncomfortable: The $9/mo plan has a limit of 100 channels opened simultaneosly and doesn't have a way to pay for more channels simultaneosly opened!!! Is this true? are we going to be limited to 100 concurrent channels on paid apps with no room to grow up?

--
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/-/dtL1_FZAJz4J.
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.

--
С уважением,
Кулин Тимофей.

Телефон: +7 (4852) 974793
ICQ: 114902104
email: tim...@koolin.ru
Blog: http://timofey.koolin.ru

[Chiguireitor]

That's only for the premium edition, the $500/account plan, the $9/mo/app option doesn't specify the additional free for the concurrent channels

[Chiguireitor]

Fee... Not free, stupid swype keyboard

[Gregory D'alesandre]

That price applies to either Paid or Premier, sorry for the poorly formatted page, we'll be updating that page soon.

Greg

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Chiguireitor <johnvill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fee... Not free, stupid swype keyboard

--
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/-/XAS6x5hrnxEJ.

[Gijsbert]

BTW I think it is the number of channels opened, not concurrently
open.
I've never seen a mention of a limit on number of concurrent channels.

[Everson Alves da Silva]

So, for a 1 vs 1 game, can one pool the channels? opening a new channel for each game session would be very expensive.

[Gijsbert]

One channel gives one connection between one browser and app engine,
so for a 1 on 1 game you would need 2.
But, the current channels are valid for 2 hours and can be reused
after the one browsers stops needing it in another browser (you need
to do that reuse yourself). I don't know if this will be the same in
the new charging model.

[ksafez216]

Is this channel reuse done by using Channel Presence to save tokens?
I still haven't found a function to test if a token is still valid?

I was experiencing channel disconnects when the user shuts down their
browsers even if the channel was only opened for a few minutes. So
this means we will get charged a ton if people visit the website many
times a day for very short periods of time.

I just have to say that the new Channel Pricing scheme is way out of
control! Just do some simple calculations and you'll see that the
costs will be huge for 1000's of users. This is such awesome
technology, but this new pricing will price out a bunch of aspiring
developers who don't have tons of extra money to spend.

I now feel a bit swindled. Most likely I will switch to EC2, since I
can install the APE Project on an instance, which provides the same
functionality as Channel API *without* per channel costs. It will
save me tons of money!

Now I have wasted a ton of my time developing for GAE-specific
platform. A bit of a slap in the face for loyalty. Damn you
Google! :)

On Jul 2, 8:08 pm, Gijsbert <gijsbert.de.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One channel gives one connection between one browser and app engine,
> so for a 1 on 1 game you would need 2.
> But, the current channels are valid for 2 hours and can be reused
> after the one browsers stops needing it in another browser (you need
> to do that reuse yourself). I don't know if this will be the same in

> thenewcharging model.

>
> On Jul 2, 3:43 pm, Everson Alves da Silva <khron...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > So, for a 1 vs 1 game, can one pool the channels? opening anewchannel for

[Gijsbert]

I'm still using the ping/time-out scheme from before the presence api
existence, but the presence api makes it a lot easier. But since this
new pricing turmoil started I have put my app engine projects on hold
and haven't tried the presence api yet. I must admit that the new
pricing makes it a lot harder to go for app engine than before.

BTW for channel several alternatives have been mentioned: http://pubnub.com
and http://beaconpush.com/ . They charge per message so it's difficult
to compare them with channel cost, depends the usage pattern too.

[Everson Alves da Silva]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but looks like the limit was changed drastically. Now I see 8,640 channels limit for free apps and 95,040 for accounts with billing enabled. Now I think we can use it.

[Mic Vit]

It remains unclear to me: 

"100 channels opened".

100 simultaneously open channels at any time or 100 creations of new channel for the day? 

Explain please.

[Chiguireitor]

100 creations/day.... yeah... sucks

[Bart Thate]

big time ;[

Bart Thate

programming schizofrenic - "till freedom come!"

[!] http://protocol.by/botfather

[!] http://botfather.blogspot.com

[!] http://jsonbot.org

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Chiguireitor <johnvill...@gmail.com> wrote:

100 creations/day.... yeah... sucks

--

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/-/_vbzAm_bxlcJ.

[Mic Vit]

100 instead of 8640? incredibly (