751–760 of 836 posts
I've seen in the thread that bobfunk (netlify CEO) and raiyu (cofounder at digital ocean) say the bill forgiveness is the right strategy. It got me curious on the above question though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that shows how bad the alternative is. How much is unlimited talk, text, data, hotspot with a watch data add-on where you are from? edit: Actually I was wrong–it is $30, not $35.
In New York, I pay $26 for T-Mobile, one of the most mainstream carriers.
I pay $20 for the phone plan, and $10 for the watch add-on. No fees or taxes Feels reasonable to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that shows how bad the alternative is. How much is unlimited talk, text, data, hotspot with a watch data add-on where you are from? edit: Actually I was wrong–it is $30, not $35.
My phone bill is 10€. I get unlimited calls and text, 100Gb 4G/5G then unlimited 3g, in France. I could also get 50 MB data, 2h calls, unlimited texts for 2€.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If providing this bandwidth cost them $50k rather than $5, No, I believe you are assuming that proving a "hard limit" feature is cheaper than just refunding people from time to time. If you consider the all the products AWS has to offer, all the different ways they are billed, then figuring out what do to for each product once that limit is reached, and potentially doing a destructive action, and then all the code…
> There are 100s of AWS services and many where you can't just apply a sensible rejection policy once you hit that hard limit without doing something the user cannot recover from. It's only not hard because you aren't actually thinking about the matrix of AWS products that exist and how they are billed. I don't think you understand what a hard limit is. When I set a hard limit, that means that under no circumstance s…
>No, they should refuse further writes when your database reaches a size that would exceed $10 a month. That's a safe behavior.
I think we have gotten to the point where we've lost the plot here. You previously stated "It's not that hard". We are doing projection forecasting! And the storage layer for these range of services (S3, MySQL, Postgres, MSSQL, Kafka, Keyspaces, DynamoDB, probably 20 more im missing.) must now either call out to some financial projections service and reject writes for billing reasons. On top of that if you have a hard limit you are locked out of dynamic scaling. Need to 100 nodes for an hour? Nope, you now must disable billing limits because Amazon assumes you will use every resource for the entire month. Surely someone wont disable billing limits for an hour and forget to re-enable them, right?
>but it sure beats the status quo
I'm not sure handicapping every service for some barely functional billing limit beats the status quo. It's certainly more expensive for amazon in terms of engineering load but with so many footguns I don't see how it ends up anyway other than Amazon having this feature and still having to do service refunds because billing limits were disabled due to awkward limitations.
>This is just a bad faith argument, everyone from broke college students to medium sized businesses has complained about this at one point or another. Relying on the good will of a megacorporation to forgive a surprise $100k bill is nuts and if you scroll through these comments you'll find some that claim that AWS is no longer forgiving these bills like they used to.
Medium sized businesses have had their bills forgiven for things like cryptomining for example. My point is billing limits don't really work for AWS, alerts is the best you will get because AWS doing destructive actions for you or assuming your usage patterns is worse. It's not an easy feature and to imply they keep the status quo solely because Bezos needs another yacht is reductive of the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One additional feedback, for consideration: to me, your Pricing page[1] doesn’t make it sufficiently clear that the “Starter” plan may incur costs at all (let alone in this ballpark). It’s now more apparent when looking at it in hindsight, but you have to either read very carefully, or go to the separate “View Features” page to understand this. “0$ to get started, then pay as you go” reads to me: “0$ to get started,…
How on earth could I, as a customer, be sure that netlify hadn't paid someone to DDOS me? If I were in charge of a business like that, I would have that thought constantly...
Netlify CEO here. Our support team has reached out to the user from the thread to let them know they're not getting charged for this. It's currently our policy to not shut down free sites during traffic spikes that doesn't match attack patterns, but instead forgiving any bills from legitimate mistakes after the fact. Apologies that this didn't come through in the initial support reply.
> It's currently our policy to not shut down free sites during traffic spikes that doesn't match attack patterns, but instead forgiving any bills from legitimate mistakes after the fact. Well, giving the option to users to plan ahead would be best, no? Like a setting to choose whether they want a potentially unlimited bill versus downtime. Instead of that, you are choosing to stress and make people scared/anxious/hom…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's currently our policy to not shut down free sites during traffic spikes that doesn't match attack patterns, but instead forgiving any bills from legitimate mistakes after the fact. Well, giving the option to users to plan ahead would be best, no? Like a setting to choose whether they want a potentially unlimited bill versus downtime. Instead of that, you are choosing to stress and make people scared/anxious/hom…
Frankly the only reason I can even come up with that Netlify wouldn't have such controls in place is exactly if they do _not_ simply forgive these sorts of jumps in costs (as the CEO here seems to be claiming). I'm pretty sure if they'd be left holding the bag, they'd manage to find some way to cut off these kinds of jumps in usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are 100s of AWS services and many where you can't just apply a sensible rejection policy once you hit that hard limit without doing something the user cannot recover from. It's only not hard because you aren't actually thinking about the matrix of AWS products that exist and how they are billed. I don't think you understand what a hard limit is. When I set a hard limit, that means that under no circumstance s…
> This means that for all data storage scenarios, they should apply limits to projected monthly usage rather than actual monthly usage. > No, they should refuse further writes when your database reaches a size that would exceed $10 a month. That's a safe behavior. I think we have gotten to the point where we've lost the plot here. You previously stated "It's not that hard". We are doing projection forecasting! And th…
It's not a complex "forecast". It's simply the monthly rate as I've illustrated with numerous examples.
If my limit is $10, then don't let me occupy more storage than that. It's a 1:1 conversation between gigabytes and how much they cost on a monthly basis.
Do you have ties to cloud providers you'd like to disclose? It's a very simple concept that you're refusing to understand, which usually happens when your job depends on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cloudflare's ddos protection Yeah, we got hammered once with over 10TB/mo and noped out of Netlify as fast as we could: https://twitter.com/rethinkdns/status/1370342245841342466 Had to pay the bill in full. Cloudflare's free tier is ridiculous: We do over 30TB+ of genuine traffic for $0. Makes it hard to move to any other platform. As a small tech shop, this is my Hotel California I'm happy to never leave.
> Cloudflare's free tier is ridiculous: We do over 30TB+ of genuine traffic for $0. Makes it hard to move to any other platform. As a small tech shop, this is my Hotel California I'm happy to never leave. Yeah that's how Cloudflare can reach total control over the Internet. With thunderous applause by people that should know better. I know that my position is outright blasphemous in this day and age, where even self-…
This is an emotionally-manipulative, anti-intellectual comment that certainly does not belong on HN. There's no intellectual curiosity or value in this comment - just scoffing, predictions of doom, manipulative statements like "I know that my position is outright blasphemous in this day and age", and other drivel that belongs on Reddit, not here.