Google App Engine: Free and still barely worth it

First comment:<p>"Great post. Windows web hosting is still king and that will not change anytime soon. Web hosting has grown such a loyal following that it still going to be very popular. Most of the time businesses will choose Windows web hosting over everything else because of the respect they have for Microsoft and the products they produce."<p>WTF?

Google isn't about search, Google is all about the infrastructure. From my perspective, Google's main competitive advantage has never really been their dominance in search. I've always thought that their main innovations and their chief advantage has been in terms of their infrastructure.<p>Arguably, Google has built the largest distributed computing cluster in the world with proprietary OS and datastore that is finely tuned to run on that cluster. They just don't advertise these facts too often. I'm sure that their dataset is easily in the petascale, and I'm sure that a lot of it is running in RAM to achieve the &#60;400 millisecond response times they have.<p>So, compare Google's infrastructure expertise to your $6 hosting account at Wally's Web Host, and I think that you start to see the difference. Wally might well sell you 15,000 Gb/month of web transfer, but they <i>maybe</i> might be overselling what they can actually provide. And, how many other web hosts offer to manage fault tolerant database replication for you? Heck, what's your instance up time at Wally's Web Host? Last I checked, Google's had 15 minutes of downtime since 2000.<p>With GAE, I Google isn't selling web hosting. What they are doing is offering to outsource your sys admin duties for free. The verdict is still out, but I would be interested in seeing the response of apps on GAE to first couple of Slashdottings/Diggings/Boingboings. I'd venture a guess that they'll handle it rather smoothly, and that the developer running the site will be able to snooze through it, instead of panicking and trying to reboot the server, cache the page in question, or have Apache serve the page as a static file. Not having to panic each time your server pings your cell phone can only be a good thing for developers.

People just love misinterpreting products, comparing them to completely unrelated things and just making noise. That's right. Making noise is the goal. All else is secondary.<p>Can't people just say "Hey look, here's a new product which IS USEFUL to somebody out there on earth and a damn nifty one at that." That somebody in Google App Engine's case is a hacker who wants to quickly try out his hobbies without worrying about all the mess that comes with managing a web host.<p>But no. We must compare. And we must make noise. Lots of it.<p>Perhaps it gives us a way to figure out which blogs / sites to NEVER visit.

My favorite quote from the linked article:<p>"Google App Engine's ability to scale depends on how much server resources Google is willing to dedicate to the task of running these applications. Google is not going to risk slowing down their primary services for a Google App Engine application. So their ability to scale could very well be less than other companies, we just don't know."<p>No doubt a $6/mo. account at Dreamhost will scale better than Google.

If the ease of deployment was the only feature App Engine had it would still be worth it. Running "appcfg.py update path_to_app/" to deploy your Python app beats all other options.<p>And anyone complaining about static files and cron jobs doesn't understand that those don't belong on your application server anyway. Google is providing scaling for the application server and the data storage. Static files and cron jobs can be easily scaled. Database servers not so much.