André Silva de Jesus

My feedback

  1. 2,219 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    73 comments  ·  Storage » Blobs  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your feedback. We are currently in public preview of static website hosting for Azure Storage to enable this scenario. Check out the blog post here for more details: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-storage-static-web-hosting-public-preview. The feature set includes support for default documents and custom error documents for HTTP status code 404.

    For any further questions, or to discuss your specific scenario, send us an email at azurestoragefeedback@microsoft.com.

    André Silva de Jesus commented  · 

    Are we limited to only one website per storage account?

  2. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  4 comments  ·  Azure Maps » Feature requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    André Silva de Jesus commented  · 

    @rbrundritt Yea, I know higher QPS has a higher cost. And that was exactly my point in the original suggestion (and now again): I don't really _know_ where exactly that 10x increase in price is coming from. Only you do. And you're not transparent about it. So that's why I used QPS as an example.

    > S0 [...] is meant more so for development and smaller apps

    Oh, nice to see that you acknowledge that, because that's exactly what S0 feels like: a "development/testing" tier. The problem is there's only two pricing tiers: "development/testing" and "big enterprise".

    So, what I proposed in that original suggestion is that you introduce a new price tier where the costlier thing (let's say it's QPS) is even costlier than S1 (or maybe it's not even included) but other things are cheaper. Or perhaps better yet: make a complex pricing table like Google's.

    As I've said in my previous comment, you are bundling a lot of things under the "S1" umbrella. The issue is that because of that all of a sudden I have to pay _a lot_ just for satellite images, even though I won't use 200 QPS or whatever. If you haven't read my previous comment in this very same suggestion, please do.

    > Satellite imagery is not cheap

    I know that. However, you offering is still more expensive than Google's (and has no free tier - not that I think it necessarily must have, even though it would be good if it did; I'm merely pointing out how big the disparity is here). You yourself do point that out in the end of your comment, so I don't know what's your point here? Maybe you think that I think it's cheap? I've never asked for it to be cheap. I'm simply asking you to make a _competitive_ offering. That's very different.

    > there's a lot going behind the scenes that isn't public yet

    Well, that... ahm... may be nice to hear, but doesn't really help here?? The point still stands - pricing is not good - and image quality remains low. I will be watching any new development nonetheless.

    > the way Azure Maps pricing works is that customers pay for what they actually use

    I find that _really_ hard to believe. In fact, as I have said before, I think it's exactly the opposite. I feel like the system wants some customers (like my company) to pay _more_ than what they use so that they help subsidize the cost of others who use more expensive features. If that's not the case, then maybe you should put a little more effort into explaining how your pricing works.

    > Its also worth noting that majority of user s who need S1 generate very high usage 100M+ transactions on average and are usually already large Microsoft customers and get significant volume license discounts.

    Is Azure Maps made _for_ these large Microsoft customers? If so, I think you forgot to make that clear with your marketing, because currently I'm seeing it being offered as an alternative for Google Maps. If not, then this is:
    1) At best, another useless point to make. I'm a customer. And I see another service with better pricing. I'm simply voicing my opinion. :)
    2) At worst, more evidence of what I said before: there's no price tier for small and middle-size companies.

    > The Azure Maps platform is growing fast and there is a lot more coming.

    That's nice to hear and that's why I'm offering feedback. I may be wrong but I think you will encounter _a lot_ of resistance if you keep the pricing like it is right now. And I feel like you will end up changing it. I only wish this could be done sooner so that I could make the switch from Google.

    André Silva de Jesus commented  · 

    I think that by trying to make your pricing simpler, you've made it worse.
    What you did is just put an entire bowl of different needs under the "Enterprise" umbrella: "Well, you're a big enterprise, so surely you must need more QPS and Hybrid Aerial Imagery and Satellite Imagery and Advanced Routing and Batch Geocoding and all this stuff! There you go!". Well, guess what, not every big enterprise is trying to be the next Google. Some need more QPS, some need Batch Geocoding, some need Hybrid Aerial Imagery, some need a combination of those. And the opposite is true as well: I need Satellite Imagery and I'm pretty sure I don't work for a big enterprise.

    Google's complex pricing model is way better. I only pay for what I use. If I only use Satellite Imagery, I only pay for that _and_ for how much I use.

    In contrast, in your model, by paying S1 to use Satellite imagery, what I'm doing in actuality is sponsoring other users which _do_ use other things as higher QPS and Geofencing and Matrix Routing. They use, I pay.

    André Silva de Jesus commented  · 

    Please read the comments in that original post (https://feedback.azure.com/forums/909172-azure-maps/suggestions/36265189-pricing-is-really-bad)) where I give more details on my rationale.

    André Silva de Jesus shared this idea  · 
  3. 12 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Maps » Feature requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    André Silva de Jesus commented  · 

    My customers sometimes need to print a map pointing out where their Service Order is so they can guide themselves to there, and for that I use Google Static Image API. However, while trying out Azure Maps, I noticed that it's impossible to guide yourself using it, since the streets names only appear if you zoom in really, really close.

    André Silva de Jesus supported this idea  · 
  4. 2,051 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    125 comments  ·  Signup and Billing  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi there,

    My apologies for how long this post has gone unanswered. The Azure billing team has undergone a transformation to ship features faster and improve our responsiveness to our customers. The new team is excited to re-engage with the community and deliver the features you need for a consistent and reliable cloud billing experience.

    With that said, let’s break down this ask:

    Azure currently accepts Credit and Debit cards, and provides a payment option through invoice for certain subscriptions that meet the appropriate criteria. (http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/offers/ms-azr-0003p/)

    Supporting prepaid or virtual credit cards raises several concerns from a billing standpoint. Because of this, we currently don’t support this feature.

    Other localized payment options through PayPal or other third party services are being considered for implementation in Azure, updates will be made available here.

    If you have any further questions, please submit a new suggestion and we will be happy…

    André Silva de Jesus commented  · 

    This needs to happen soon. My company has switched from AWS to Azure, but we're considering switching back now, because we don't want to use credit cards because of legal and operational issues.

    I don't understand why not accept pre-paid cards if you already accept wire transfer.

  5. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  (General Feedback) » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    André Silva de Jesus commented  · 

    I agree and this doesn't look like it should be that difficult to do.

    André Silva de Jesus supported this idea  · 
  6. 162 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  23 comments  ·  Virtual Machines  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    André Silva de Jesus supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base