[skrebbel]

I'm irked how "Firebase alternative" has come to mean "hosted database with an API layer". I mean, the key pitch of Firebase has always been that it's a realtime database. With both Supabase and Trailbase this seems a bit of a bonus aspect, kinda sorta half supported for a few things here and there. In Firebase meanwhile, as well as its successor Firestore, everything can be monitored in realtime. This is its key feature and all design choices derive from that. Notably all its weird limitations of the schema possibilities and query options derive from the goal to make a simple database that's 100% realtime-observable.

It's just super weird to me to see something presented as a "Firebase alternative" without a single realtime data sync example on the homepage. Trailbase has one deep, deep down the docs and nothing is explained about the "subscribe" limitations. That's not a Firebase alternative, it's just a hosted database. That's like calling a Chromebook an "iPhone alternative" because it lets you access WhatsApp and Twitter just like an iPhone would.

ps. I haven't followed Supabase a lot so maybe they got on top of this since, but it was pretty disappointing to me back when they launched to much fanfare. Like the only realtime thing they had was a counter or something like that.

[creativenolo]

There is little mention of realtime on the Firebase landing page https://firebase.google.com

We likely agree that firebase is superb. But your criticism of using ‘alternative’ is unjust both in terms of the breadth of firebase, and why a competitor might target someone about to choose Firebase.

[skrebbel]

Actually I think I'm just old. To me "Firebase" still means the "Firebase Realtime Database" but after they got acquired by Google, they took the Firebase brand and started building all kinds of features that would let non-backend engineers ship apps without needing a backend, including an improved version of the realtime database (Firestore).

Somehow I've always read "Firebase alternative" as "alternative to Firebase Realtime Database" but now I see that what Supabase & co mean is "stuff you can put on a server once and then you won't need to do any backend stuff anymore", ie the current positioning of the Firebase brand.

I stand corrected.

(sidenote, Google's Firebase acquisition has to be one of the best-executed devtool acquisitions right? Nobody would've been surprised if they had just gobbled Firebase up, spread the team across GCP, put the product on life support and after a year told customers to just move to GCP proper, somehow. Instead they realized that "GCP Easy Mode" was worth having a separate brand for and they executed excellently on that)

[creativenolo]

Yes - totally agree on side note. Took me a while to realise that firebase is now a high-level hat sat on top of GCP that you can take off, and put back on, as you please. Very neat.

It’s insanely lean to get started. But at the end of the day, its GCP underneath with GCP billing (i.e. no spend caps). The easy mode UX, and the risk of real expenditure, sit in contradiction to each other. Of course, there a very generous free tier to placate that. But things like realtime need to be used with real cost considerations, and not frivolously once you need a feature only available on pay as you go.

[trailbase-alt]

I think it's fair criticism and certainly an area where TrailBase can improve (it's still young). FWIW, I used to avoid the "Firebase" comparison and be more descriptive with a long list of features. That confused a lot of folks. Firebase-like seemed to get the rough product-ballpark across more effectively. If I had to guess, I'd say Supabase probably arrived at a similar conclusion.

Either way, they are all rather broad products and many users only use subsets. Thanks for speaking up, appreciated.

[skrebbel]

Fwiw I changed my mind and I now think that your positioning is fine (see adjacent comment). Don't make it harder for people to grok at the behest of HN purists like me! :-)