David Dal Busco, founder of Juno, has called time on Firebase Hosting, and he’s not alone. A growing number of developers are questioning the value of sticking with Google’s service after its latest pricing shake-up. For Dal Busco, the final straw was a projected $30 bill for what had been a low-maintenance static site. He’s now migrated to Juno, his own project, which runs on the Internet Computer blockchain.
Six years of convenience with Firebase Hosting came to an abrupt halt when the pricing model changed. A previously manageable expense became a monthly charge that felt disproportionate for a static site. Serving 2.6GB of data daily might exceed Firebase’s free 360MB limit, but for Dal Busco, the jump in cost didn’t sit well. He compared it to entertainment subscriptions—Netflix, Spotify—and found it hard to justify. His site’s traffic remained consistent, yet suddenly, he was paying far more for the same service. He began exploring bot mitigation strategies to reduce unnecessary traffic, but that didn’t change the core issue—Firebase had altered its pricing, and he wasn’t willing to absorb the extra cost.
Enter Juno. Dal Busco had always planned to migrate, but Firebase forced the issue sooner than expected. He had intended to move when Juno evolved into a DAO, marking a milestone for the project. That symbolic moment never arrived; instead, rising costs accelerated his decision.
Juno operates differently from traditional hosting services. Built on the Internet Computer, it allows static sites to be hosted with significantly lower costs. Instead of ongoing fees tied to bandwidth usage, the primary expenses stem from storing data and updating state. Querying data—like serving a website—remains free under the current system. The cost differential is stark. Dal Busco estimates his yearly expense on Juno will be around $10. Compared to Firebase’s new pricing, it’s a dramatic saving. Even if his estimates are slightly off and the cost reaches $20, it’s still far below what Firebase demanded in a single month.
This shift highlights a broader trend in the developer community. Many are looking for alternatives that align better with their needs. Static sites, in particular, don’t require the dynamic features that Firebase offers, making services like Juno a compelling choice. The blockchain-based approach provides an additional layer of ownership and decentralisation, something that resonates with those wary of increasing costs from major tech companies.
Migrating to Juno follows a straightforward process. It starts with signing into Juno’s console and setting up an Internet Identity—a decentralised authentication method. Users then create a ‘Satellite,’ which serves as a container for their project. While not identical to a Docker container, it functions similarly, operating entirely on-chain.
Deployment integrates with GitHub Actions, automating the process through a simple configuration. Developers generate a secret key, add a config file, and establish a workflow to handle deployment. With the GitHub Action in place, the site deploys directly on-chain without extra steps.
The final stage involves updating DNS settings. Firebase entries need to be removed, and new DNS records provided by Juno are added. Once everything is in place, Firebase can be deleted entirely, ensuring no lingering charges.
Dal Busco acknowledges that Juno’s suitability depends on project requirements. Static sites benefit significantly from the cost structure, but those with frequent state updates may have different considerations. For his use case, however, the decision was clear-cut.
Developers frustrated by Firebase’s pricing might find Juno an attractive alternative. The blockchain model eliminates traditional hosting expenses while offering a decentralised approach. Dal Busco’s experience suggests that a move away from Firebase isn’t just about cost—it’s about autonomy, efficiency, and making a choice that aligns with the evolving needs of modern web development.
