Clearly someone needed a larger boat.
A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
121–130 of 516 posts
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I learnt this lesson the hard way. Solution: get a separate debit (not credit!) card for all cloud stuff. Make sure you only transfer enough money on to it each month to cover what you reasonably expect your bills to be (and that you can quickly top it up in hours if you legitimately need to). Worst case, if AWS or Google decide to fuck you over, let the bill bounce. This way you've still got funds on hand to deal wi…
Or the bank can just automatically give you an overdraft for that amount, add some fees because you accessed that facility, and require you to pay the full amount. After all, they're just being helpful in managing your money and paying your suppliers.
This is why no reasonable person should use debit cards for recurring payments.
I'd advise not using debit cards for anything, under any circumstances, and relying on the better protections that credit cards provide, but it's a losing battle. My debit card is ATM-only.
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I learnt this lesson the hard way. Solution: get a separate debit (not credit!) card for all cloud stuff. Make sure you only transfer enough money on to it each month to cover what you reasonably expect your bills to be (and that you can quickly top it up in hours if you legitimately need to). Worst case, if AWS or Google decide to fuck you over, let the bill bounce. This way you've still got funds on hand to deal wi…
Or the bank can just automatically give you an overdraft for that amount, add some fees because you accessed that facility, and require you to pay the full amount. After all, they're just being helpful in managing your money and paying your suppliers.
Not sure who you bank with but our bank will bounce it if honouring it would require going overdrawn beyond €500.
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, it looks like the service provider hadn't taken into account an oddball use case in the pricing / metering, and then suddenly did. They certainly should have communicated that better and their tools / charts should have a way of showing the billable data, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it vendor lock-in. It's not like everyone on Firebase is complaining and the author admits they made major mistakes.
Just "communicating better" is not a reasonable response to making such a dramatic change in how much money you charge someone. If I tell you I'm going to punch you in the face, that doesn't make the punch acceptable behaviour. Cloud services that pull this kind of bait and switch deserve to be ridiculed and lose lots of business over the negative PR. Cloud services that unintentionally pull this kind of bait and swi…
I didn't say it's acceptable. I said it's not likely to be a vendor lock-in strategy, which is counter to the parent comment's claim.
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's probably the purpose of this post — the best way to get support from Google, after all, is still by posting a story on reddit, twitter or HN. Which is pretty sad.
I think it's kind of weird to see Google/Firebase team members swarming around in dozens on HN when they present a new feature, which seems to me like a coordinated marketing effort by Google. But once problems arise or they get criticized by their own users, no one seems to be available for a comment.
I was thinking the same thing. There's a giant circle of patting each other on the back every time they roll something out, and always have that very precise disclaimer that they work for the big G.
Then again, as a meta comment I will point out that the fact that both you and I so clearly notice this suggest that we are following these updates much more closely then most of the folks here.
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I learnt this lesson the hard way. Solution: get a separate debit (not credit!) card for all cloud stuff. Make sure you only transfer enough money on to it each month to cover what you reasonably expect your bills to be (and that you can quickly top it up in hours if you legitimately need to). Worst case, if AWS or Google decide to fuck you over, let the bill bounce. This way you've still got funds on hand to deal wi…
I agree, let the providers take the risk. Typically, the providers will let it bounce a few times before cutting things off as well. This might just give you another week or two to sort things out, without having to lay out possibly significant funds that you may or may not be able to reclaim. I only wish setting up virtual cards were as easy as setting up a new mail box. I know there are services out there that lets…
To be honest, the best way is setting up a completely isolated account with card. If you're extra paranoid, use a different bank for this account.
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#127I am so surprised why people buy into some SAAS software that does simple things instead of hiring 2 programmers from cheap location (somewhere between India and Poland western border), getting Hetzner VPS or dedicates server (even the second option is cheap, including a few administrator hours) and be done. It is not so hard to predict failure/buy out of some SAAS provider, it happened so many times. I am curious wh…
You think 2 random 2nd world devs are going to write you your own database?
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#128That's the same, old vendor lock-in approach. It has happened with the servers, databases, network equipment etc. now it happens with cloud -- nothing unexpected, prepare to see more of these when cloud market stabilizes and clear leaders emerge. That's why I always prefer open solutions, that can be moved/migrated/replaced easily and advise others to do the same.
Eh, it looks like the service provider hadn't taken into account an oddball use case in the pricing / metering, and then suddenly did. They certainly should have communicated that better and their tools / charts should have a way of showing the billable data, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it vendor lock-in. It's not like everyone on Firebase is complaining and the author admits they made major mistakes.
But why do providers get a free pass when they do a major mistake (à la GitLab losing tons of not-backed-up data), but customers are required to accept whatever the provider throws at them? It seems pretty unfair to me.
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#129Reminds me of getting Bait-and-Switch'd by Google App Engine in 2011. From 10's of euros to 1000's. > They have no phone number to contact, no way to dispute this other than email — which they have ignored us for over a month now without replying to our continued requests. Trapped. Doomed. We have no further options. Sounds like Google did a great job with Firebase. Definitely gives you that Google-feel of unresponsi…
Jup, had the same issue with Google App Engine. Luckily I could contact support... "What do you mean, you retain a running instance of every previous instance I pushed?!" Fun times.
Yep. For me it was running instances that didn't respond to requests to delete or stop. They kept charging anyway.
Support was somebody in a different timezone who complained when I didn't answer my phone in the middle of the night. I quite liked the Google Cloud offering, but to get so burnt so quickly... stay away.
Re: A startup’s Firebase bill suddenly increased from $25 to $1750 per month
#130Going cloud is like selling naked options, the risk is not limited.
I was wondering: who is really allowed to sell naked options (as opposed to options that get killed if you can't afford a margin call) ?
Depends on whether it is OTC options versus a more bespoke product, but in general, counterparty risk is something which investors have more or less appetite for. If you're engaged with OTC options via the Options Clearinghouse Corporation, you're engaged in a system with "approximately but not exactly zero" appetite for counterparty risk.
If you're e.g. the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia and you call up Goldman Sachs and say "Make me a market in naked puts on Citi, at-the-money, with expiry in a year; I'm thinking about a billion dollars worth", I give you excellent odds on them being able to put that trade together for you. I mean, it will cost you a lot of money, but Saudi Arabia doesn't call Goldman Sachs up and expect it to not cost them a lot of money, now do they.