1,790 karma · joined July 29, 2010
It's funny because when that article started I was totally on board with him, then we got there and I just laughed.
This is what you're paying for. The cost of that is the difference between hosting yourself on Amazon and what Heroku charges. That's the cost to your business of using Heroku. This cost has steadily increased. This isn't rocket science, and it certainly isn't burgers at a restaurant. I get that for some people that cost is a worthwhile expenditure, but as that divide widens, the number of people it makes sense for will decrease.
To try and equate this to your burger analogy, if raw beef kept dropping in price, but restaurants all charged the same, more people would cook at home, no? Now, imagine you're feeding 100 people a day. At some point the cost savings of cooking the beef far outweighs the luxury of sending 100 people to a restaurant.
It was .055 / hour when it launched in 2009. Back then, EC2 small instances cost .10 / hour (http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2009/10/27/announc...).
Now? Heroku is .05 / hour, and small EC2 instances are .06 / hour. This is why I stopped using Heroku a year or so ago for anything I plan on paying for. They just let Amazon keep driving down their bottom line without passing any of those savings onto their customers.
It's easy to look back and say, you're filthy rich now so you aren't actually taking risks, but taking risks is how he got there.
If Taxi drivers had simply been willing to pick people up who call into dispatch (or book via Taxi Magic), Uber probably wouldn't exist.
It'd be selection bias if he made the assumption that most big businesses were using Ruby. That's not the point he was making -- what he said was that lots of people using Ruby work at big businesses.
395120080593788 is one, I believe. That one was just a facebook page tab so I only have links to it. From the looks of it, the only apps that returned were ones with multiple administrators.
144346579010587 is another app id that didn't return.