[httparchive]

Yeah, I'm basically just having to write this off so it sucks for me (a lot - I'm bootstrapping a start up), but I'm more worried about other people (especially students) getting caught up in what feels like a scam given the language on the website not, ya know, mentioning the risk of being charged $14k.

[hobofan]

The getting started guide linked by the website states:

> Note: The size of the tables you query are important because BigQuery is billed based on the number of processed data. There is 1TB of processed data included in the free tier, so running a full scan query on one of the larger tables can easily eat up your quota. This is where it becomes important to design queries that process only the data you wish to explore

Could this be a bigger warning? Sure.

Is something a scam just because they don't explain the general implications of entering your payment information to a usage-billed product? Not really.

[olliej]

There's "scam" in the sense of "it didn't do what they said"/"charged me more than they said", and there's a more colloquial "scam" where the UI is designed to obscure the cost of a task (quintessential dark pattern stuff). I don't think the reporter is saying "they lied about big query", they're saying the UI is set up to make extremely expensive mistakes very easy, and it's set up to hide the actual cost of the query.

Estimating the total cost of a query is obviously fraught, but from the UI and other comments it sounds like BigQuery knows up front how much data a query will require, and there's at least a minimum cost per TB, so the UI could just say "this will cost at least $X" but the UI has a very basic "this will process X PB of data" text. So they're charging by TB but showing the usage in PB which is a) a 1000x smaller number, and b) visually similar to "TB".

It's very hard to see that as anything other than "design to obscure cost" given that there's no reason to not say "this will cost $X" when the cost is per TB, even if they don't the pricing is per TB but they're showing PB, the checkbox and the textual description are smaller that other text on the page, and there's no ability to specify a cost cap.

[ghaff]

I understand the argument against hard circuit-breakers (yeah, seems like a good idea, but had a good traffic spike and I'm down). But it makes even me cautious with respect to scenarios where I could just fat finger something. There are some controls but there are no guarantees in most cases.