Google Container Registry

> Dammit google, this is not how you price things.

It actually is the way Google quite often prices things.

> I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be.

Then maybe a pre-release service for which Google has not yet developed the experience with usage patterns that will let it price the service appropriately isn't for you. But that's okay, its not intended for everybody -- even everybody for whom the service would be appropriate when GA -- hence the Beta label.

Your quote says it is a beta service. If you are betting the farm on beta services or expecting them not to change under you during a beta period, it really is only your own fault.

This could end up being more expensive than Docker's own or CoreOS's. People would rather pay a flat fee rather than worrying about storage and bandwidth.

A large part of the issue with pricing on Google App Engine (which is the one that still stings for many people) - was that they were building on a relatively proprietary platform.

The advantage of Docker based compute engines is that your lock-in is a lot lower - providers have to compete on price and features without locking customers in.

Where I work, we're always balancing using new AWS features against how hard it would be to migrate out to another provider or take our solutions on-premises.

> During the beta period you will be charged only for the Google Cloud Storage storage and network egress consumed by your Docker images.

Is there any guarantee the cost will be a linear function of those things? Quadratic? Quartic? Exponential?

Fine print, fine print everywhere.

Yes a little bit of competition in the container registry space would be good for everybody. I need to have a closer look how good is this Google offering. One problem that we run into was security when started to use Docker. The management did not want to upload the images to any cloud provider, so we were forced to create a registry in our infrastructure. For this use case Registry 2.0 is going to be a better option.

http://blog.docker.com/2015/04/faster-and-better-image-distr...

I imagine that wouldn't be very likely in this case—this is much less like Google's usual "let's build some random thing and see if customers like it", and instead very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public.

Now, they might make it private in the future, but as long as Google are using containers for everything, I don't think the service is likely to just go unmaintained and fade away.

Pull the plug out from under you? Or the rug...

>I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google.

Interesting take on things. It's mostly contributions from Google that made containers viable in the first place.