Yes, and that's exactly how Heroku started too. You bait as many people as possible as early as possible, often by giving subsidies, free stuff and extreme price cuts that make you stand out. Don't forget to give away silly swag and free stickers at random "cloud conventions". None of that is sustainable in the long run (because you're bleeding cash), but your goal is to grow a large user base and get the word-of-mouth out there quickly. Once you have amassed a large population of users you start tightening the lock-in across the entire platform, and slowly raising prices across the board. Or, you keep raising money from VCs to cover up the losses with the promise of being profitable one day. Rinse and repeat.
This is the story of pretty much every cloud provider out there. The cloud is just someone else's computer.
The real pricing, at least for the low-end plans I was interested in, is the same as Heroku's (which is fine by me!), but I'm turned off by the way it was marketed
https://render.com/docs/free#free-postgresql-databases
> free databases are deleted [after 90 + 14 days]
> (unless they are upgraded to a paid plan)
> Free projects are paused after 1 week of inactivity.
That feels sneaky and I'm a bit turned off by it
That said, their $0 web service plan seems to have no time limit and no shutoffs; possibly equivalent to Heroku's $7 plan, which is all I've ever used
I was expecting that because that's what Heroku does, but I don't see anything about it on the pricing page (even in the fine print). So either it's a great deal, or highly deceptive marketing
Edit: Argh, you have to click a [?] and then click through to another page where they explain that. I think they've lost my business; that's sketchy as hell.
If that had just been up-front on the main pricing page I would have become a (small) paying customer, buying the $7 plan and moving off of Heroku. But now Render has lost my trust, so I've deleted my account.
IMO, all the limitations of each one of these $0 plans should be up-front on the big, main card. You have some limitations listed there - "100 GB/month bandwidth included", "SSD disks for $0.25/GB per month", "1 GB SSD storage included", etc - which implies to the reader that those are all of the limitations. But then, the most important limitation in each case gets buried. That's what feels intentionally deceptive.
Your point around the limitations is well articulated and valid. The last thing we want is to be deceptive, even unintentionally.
If I have a "static" site, then I can't have any backend code that talks to the database, is that it? So the actual web pages can't use client-side Javascript to customize page content by talking to a backend, that talks to a database?
As an example, I am currently hosting four sites on Render.
Two are Rails sites with databases, Redis, BG workers, etc. I pay a decent amount for those, albeit quite a bit less than Heroku.
Meanwhile, two others are static sites generated with Jekyll(?) that are pure content and require no DB. I add new content locally, push to GitHub, and deploy to Render automatically through a GH action. I pay $0/month for these two sites.
Hope that helps
[0]: https://render.com/docs/databases#database-versions--upgrade...
For comparison, here's the heroku instructions -- still requires some downtime.
https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/upgrading-heroku-postg...
I guess you have to manually enter a few more commands for render... if that's really a big deal to people, I would think render should notice and replace it with one command that does those few for you, cause that doesn't seem so hard, does it?
State is the hard part to manage compared to stateless web tiers and what not, so that’s a big value prop
But it’s definitely enough to kick the tires and see if it fits your needs.