Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

blog.porter.run

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 230 posts

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#71

Post by mark_l_watson »

A good article, except for one big thing: this is not an end user, rather a direct competitor. Public articles that criticize competitors always run me the wrong way.

I haven't used Heroku in a few years, but it has served (using the Hobby plan) as a really low cost way to host web apps.

I have been reading through the comments on alternative providers, and even though I haven't used it, GCP's Cloud Deploy looks interesting also (a very long time ago, I used AppEngine a fair amount).

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#72

Post by chrisseaton »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #56

For all heroku's frustrations (and I agree with all of them in the article), it is still the only thing that "just works" for a standard monolith web app. Heroku is not cheap, but it is still cheaper than a couple full time employees + aws. It is really too bad they aren't innovating - they are just burning up their 10 year lead in the space. I wouldn't start a new project on Heroku - not because of the cost, but bec…

It blows my mind that they don't provide an object store. Almost all web apps in my experience need an object store of some kind.

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#73

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

js4ever wrote: post #62
spaniard89277 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://scalingo.com/ is nice too

not really, it's available only in france and it's crazy expensive, we are talking about 115€/month for a container with 4gb of ram, so large that the offer is named 2XL. Wow now 2cpu/4GB of ram is considered 2XL

I like caprover more.

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#75

Post by asenchi »

jimmar wrote: post #17

I took a few minutes to scan Porter's website. They have a free tier. But when I read the getting started documentation, it says that I have to provision everything in my existing cloud infrastructure (e.g.; AWS). So I'm paying for the services in AWS. It seems I got lost in the story. Porter doesn't immediately feel like a replacement for Heroku.

Make sure you are careful of their LICENSE if you choose to self-host. That repo is scary from a business perspective.

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#76

Post by mixedCase »

spicybright wrote: post #60
jacobsenscott wrote: post #56

For all heroku's frustrations (and I agree with all of them in the article), it is still the only thing that "just works" for a standard monolith web app. Heroku is not cheap, but it is still cheaper than a couple full time employees + aws. It is really too bad they aren't innovating - they are just burning up their 10 year lead in the space. I wouldn't start a new project on Heroku - not because of the cost, but bec…

It's honestly strange how no one has eaten their lunch yet. Besides the extra services they now offer (which you aren't required for hosting a simple app), you could probably have a team bang out the basics in a few months. You could even just be a layer on top of AWS and probably make profit from not many users, as long as you're cheaper.

> You could even just be a layer on top of AWS and probably make profit from not many users, as long as you're cheaper.

Isn't Heroku exactly that?

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#77

Post by intrepidsoldier »

In the last decade, a vast majority of DevTools companies have positioned themselves as “A better Heroku.” And yet, when people actually need a Heroku alternative, everything comes up short. This is a testament to a solid product Heroku built. It was definitely ahead of its time.

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#78

Post by ceejayoz »

chrisseaton wrote: post #72
jacobsenscott wrote: post #56

For all heroku's frustrations (and I agree with all of them in the article), it is still the only thing that "just works" for a standard monolith web app. Heroku is not cheap, but it is still cheaper than a couple full time employees + aws. It is really too bad they aren't innovating - they are just burning up their 10 year lead in the space. I wouldn't start a new project on Heroku - not because of the cost, but bec…

It blows my mind that they don't provide an object store. Almost all web apps in my experience need an object store of some kind.

What do you imagine their home-grown offering would have over using S3 directly?

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#79

Post by mrkurt »

craigkerstiens wrote: post #7

As someone that was there at Heroku after the acquisition, I don't think you can state that since the acquisition it's been consistently downhill. There isn't much debate that things have stagnated in the last 5-7 years which is a longer story on why probably. Some examples of innovation that happened and were launched after the acquisition: buildpacks (at the time of acquisition Heroku was still Ruby only), Heroku P…

I think the most interesting part of this is the PaaS disaggregation. Heroku built an exceptionally good Postgres service. They could not have done that with multiple DBs. Even their redis is pretty meh.

People like us (Fly.io) will end up either building very mediocre DB offerings or collaborating with DB companies (like yours: https://www.crunchydata.com/products/crunchy-bridge/) to ship stuff that's substantially better than RDS. I'm looking forward to it. Down with mediocre DB services.

Re: Why companies move off Heroku (besides the cost)

#80

Post by chrisseaton »

ceejayoz wrote: post #78
chrisseaton wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It blows my mind that they don't provide an object store. Almost all web apps in my experience need an object store of some kind.

What do you imagine their home-grown offering would have over using S3 directly?

I thought the entire point of Heroku was that it wrapped up existing essential basic AWS offerings into a more manageable package?

I’d rather not have to manage a side account for AWS, and set up the connections to it and things. I’d rather it was just there, like their database.

Post reply on HN