If you offer a service, you have some responsibility towards your users. One of those responsibilities is to give enough notice about changes. IMO, this change doesn't provide enough notice. Why not making it a year, or at least a couple of months? Probably because they don't want people to have enough notice to force their hand.
What principal are you using to suggest that responsibility comes from?
I have a blog, do I have to give my readers notice before I turn off the service because I can't afford the next hosting charge?
Isn't this almost exclusively going to effect engineers? Isn't it more of the engineer's responsibility not to allow their mission critical software to have such a fragile signal point of failure?
> Probably because they don't want people to have enough notice to force their hand.
You don't. You have responsibility towards your owners/shareholders. You only have to worry about your customers if they are going to leave. Non-paying users not so much - you're just cutting costs now zirp isn't a thing.
If this was a public company I would put my tin foil hat and believe that it's a quick buck scheme to boost CEO pay. A short sighted action that is not in the shareholders interest. But I guess that's not the case? Who knows...
At this stage of the product lifecycle, free users are unlikely to ever give you money without some further "incentives". This shouldnt be news by now, especially on HN.
If you're production service is relying on a free-tier someone else provides, you must have some business continuity built in. These are not philanthropic organisations.
