Software Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
2024-11-08T13:57:00Z
Nov 8, 2024
The interface is a bit complicated and not straightforward. Documentation is not well-organized, making it difficult to find current and relevant information. The logging process using stream is not always accurate, and the pricing is quite high, often twice the price of virtual machines. Additionally, in terms of scalability, they do not offer the option to have two different virtual machines with separate configurations.
Azure has too many tools that can make your work easier. With Azure, when we are going to implement a chatbot with translation for text-to-speech, we found that it should already have a tool that does that. In our company, we have to have our budget to add more tools, and then the developer solves the issues associated with the product. Too many tools in the product can be beneficial. The tool's UI is an area of concern that needs improvements. I don't like the UI so much, so it is a problem. I don't like the tool's UI or how it looks, but it is easy to use. The UI is so clear on how to start with them. If you take a course or a tutorial associated with the tool, the UI becomes easier.
A few weeks ago, I was trying to use a new web application with Microsoft Azure App Service. I thought it would be better to have a template to publish directly to Microsoft Azure App Service using GitHub because there were some documents related to Azure DevOps. If you use GitHub Actions, I would say that it is a little bit more complicated.
Having a surplus of tutorials from Microsoft, rather than relying solely on documentation or features from other sources like YouTube, can be beneficial.
Microsoft Azure App Service needs some improvement in the scaling area. The solution should also be able to easily host apps that don't have an HTML front end.
Learn what your peers think about Microsoft Azure App Service. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: December 2024.
Sizing is an area where Microsoft Azure App Service lacks, so it should be made possible to upscale. When trying to scale up, it has a limitation, specifically an upper limitation. In general, scalability should be improved. The features we use in Microsoft Azure App Service are thirty percent of the tool's services. There are a lot of other options. There's nothing that I can think of that we wanted to configure or the client wanted that was not there in App Service. Nothing needs to be added to the solution.
Extended uptime and improved speed would be beneficial for both development purposes and the free tier of the service. Currently, the uptime is limited to a few hours per day, which could be increased to provide more continuous and efficient usage.
So far, it has been good. We haven't used it for that long and haven't had any issues. The pricing is average. It could be lower. There are still some improvements that could be leveraged in the future to make it even better. The response time could be better.
Microsoft Azure App Service has a lot of complexity because there are a lot of options and functionality. It is simple to become confused, there are many technical elements to learn before you can utilize the solution. If they could make the solution easier to use it would be a benefit. In an upcoming release, mobile device usage could be a better experience.
I want more transparency in billing. It would be better if we could understand and control the billing to customize it. Also, Microsoft should provide more guidance about the widgets and subsets of various products. The Microsoft portfolio is so huge that it's sometimes difficult to choose the correct option. There's always a chance we are paying more than necessary.
Specialist Advisor (Data Custodian) at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
2022-12-28T07:32:40Z
Dec 28, 2022
Microsoft Azure App Service could improve by having better integration and connectivity with other platforms. The solution has good integration with other large companies' solutions but there are smaller service platforms companies where there could be integrated better.
Limited integration is an area for improvement in Microsoft Azure App Service. Another area for improvement in the platform is multi-language support. That still needs to be added because, at the moment, my team still has to work on specific Python languages whenever the API calls need to be configured. The pricing tier for Microsoft Azure App Service also has room for improvement because it significantly varies. For example, you have premium and dynamic pricing, and people on P2 should be offered dynamic pricing or the high-priced tier on offer could still be worked on. I want a lifecycle pipeline feature, similar to Azure Pipelines from Microsoft Azure App Service. For example, when configuring the pipelines, I should be able to configure the cloud security posture for a specific deployment. By default, there should be a prebuilt cloud security option that can be configured before moving into the production environment. Microsoft Azure App Service should also give you a clue regarding the risks. It would be best if you didn't have to connect to other modules because that wouldn't be as beneficial to platform users, mainly because Microsoft Azure App Service has a lot of security development kits.
Technical Lead at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2022-09-29T11:14:33Z
Sep 29, 2022
The outbound connectivity is not great but can be improved because, on virtual machines, the Microsoft Azure App Service uses four or five outbound IPs. So basically, if you want to communicate with an external source, you can use outbound IPs. For example, you must whitelist the outbound IP when communicating with an SQL database externally. However, because it's a multi-tenant environment and other customer applications are being shared on a skills tab, there are always limitations in the smart port. So each customer has a particular allocated smart port, which they should exhaust. It helps to work with the code. Regardless of features like a firewall where they have a hub and an environment they have features like a front door which can increase the smart port's limits to about 64,000. Hence, it will be good to have one IP without needing to add any other infrastructure. Additionally, they can improve scaling the typical environment in terms of scalability. I believe the limit for the multi-tenant environment is about 20 to 30 maximum on the PV3. So if they can increase that, other than having these significant scaling limits for the Microsoft Azure App Service environment, which is about 200, that will also help. Also, dedicating one outbound IP for App Service will go a long way.
Tech Lead at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
2022-09-23T16:26:11Z
Sep 23, 2022
App Service sometimes becomes very slow to respond, and it can be difficult to find the issue causing this. Including more detailed error logs would be an improvement.
Azure DevOps and Cloud Lead at a consultancy with self employed
Real User
2022-09-02T17:20:14Z
Sep 2, 2022
In terms of room for improvement, ease of deployment would be an area that needs some focus. Azure does provide out-of-the-box deployment features, but I found that deploying to an App Service instance can be better in terms of more tools that could be available to perform a deployment.
Recently, we have used some scheduling and event management. From an IoT use case perspective, we're all good, however, we should have additional plugins.
Price could be reduced. Particularly with Azure Web Apps. According to their current architecture, moving services from one Azure subscription to another is difficult. Customers can consume the Azure platform through a variety of subscriptions from various partners, financial visions, current political visions, and so on. Some services on the Microsoft Azure platform can be moved automatically from one subscription to another based on security and financial rules, while others cannot. Azure Web Apps are the type of service that does not automatically move from subscription to subscription, and region to region. A lot of manual labor must be performed by their organization, customer, and engineers, if necessary. They must pay too much attention to how to plan this, how to switch off, switch on, on which days, at what times, and so on. A lot of administrative work is done, but it's not very good. It would be fantastic if Microsoft morphed after my exit service, removing it from subscriptions and moving it to different regions, especially for that service.
If you're on the cloud, you just get a web interface without much detail for additional configuration or the authority to configure the root or system-level configuration. This is a weakness in the cloud version compared to desktop. In the next release, Microsoft should provide additional options for configuring the deployment environment.
Technical Architect at a construction company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-10-30T00:19:36Z
Oct 30, 2020
Initially, there were some rare instances when the server went down because it was deployed on Linux. There are some features that are not available on the Linux-based deployment, yet are available on Windows. This is something that I think Microsoft has now caught up.
Cloud Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2020-10-23T22:47:47Z
Oct 23, 2020
The network side needs improvement. It has to be more stable. Sometimes we have issues with the network side when we expand the solution. You need to find stability in order to expand the solution properly. When we do that, or we add another app service through the app service plan, we have issues with the network, and we lose communication between our data center and the app service. The solution needs better integration capabilities on the network side. There should be more options, for example, to update the DNS server, straight to the app service.
There has been some building of pipelines where we've had to test and redesign a little so if there were maybe some easier to setup guides or more template data flows that would be an improvement. It would simplify the center processes. It would probably be impossible to have a template for everyone, but maybe there's some way to kind of simplify the initial stack and point frame for new users like ourselves, to make getting off the ground a little bit easier.
DGM (Software) at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-03-09T08:07:00Z
Mar 9, 2020
It's too early to really say what features are lacking at this point. I am new to the intervention and I find it difficult to find my way around the user interface. I have my own learning tool. However, it could be simpler for new users. The pricing could be a bit less.
Architect at a energy/utilities company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2019-10-22T04:42:00Z
Oct 22, 2019
I would like to see faster adoption and maybe they can give you some templates, so that we can deploy something and then modify the template. For instance, having templates for creating a website will make things faster and easier.
Senior Software Architect at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2019-07-16T05:40:00Z
Jul 16, 2019
It is not unsual that we run into problems related to the deployment and post-installation. But Azure team is aware of these issues and continuously keeps improving the Azure stack.
Microsoft Azure App Service is an HTTP-based mobile application development platform and solution. It is designed to enable organizations to completely control their application development and hosting processes.
Microsoft Azure App Service Benefits
Some of the benefits that come from using Microsoft Azure App Service include:
A high level of security. Microsoft Azure App Service comes with enterprise-level and industry-standard SLAs through the use of PCI security standards. Users can go...
The interface is a bit complicated and not straightforward. Documentation is not well-organized, making it difficult to find current and relevant information. The logging process using stream is not always accurate, and the pricing is quite high, often twice the price of virtual machines. Additionally, in terms of scalability, they do not offer the option to have two different virtual machines with separate configurations.
Azure has too many tools that can make your work easier. With Azure, when we are going to implement a chatbot with translation for text-to-speech, we found that it should already have a tool that does that. In our company, we have to have our budget to add more tools, and then the developer solves the issues associated with the product. Too many tools in the product can be beneficial. The tool's UI is an area of concern that needs improvements. I don't like the UI so much, so it is a problem. I don't like the tool's UI or how it looks, but it is easy to use. The UI is so clear on how to start with them. If you take a course or a tutorial associated with the tool, the UI becomes easier.
A few weeks ago, I was trying to use a new web application with Microsoft Azure App Service. I thought it would be better to have a template to publish directly to Microsoft Azure App Service using GitHub because there were some documents related to Azure DevOps. If you use GitHub Actions, I would say that it is a little bit more complicated.
In terms of improvement, the technical support could be better.
Having a surplus of tutorials from Microsoft, rather than relying solely on documentation or features from other sources like YouTube, can be beneficial.
Microsoft Azure App Service needs some improvement in the scaling area. The solution should also be able to easily host apps that don't have an HTML front end.
Sizing is an area where Microsoft Azure App Service lacks, so it should be made possible to upscale. When trying to scale up, it has a limitation, specifically an upper limitation. In general, scalability should be improved. The features we use in Microsoft Azure App Service are thirty percent of the tool's services. There are a lot of other options. There's nothing that I can think of that we wanted to configure or the client wanted that was not there in App Service. Nothing needs to be added to the solution.
Extended uptime and improved speed would be beneficial for both development purposes and the free tier of the service. Currently, the uptime is limited to a few hours per day, which could be increased to provide more continuous and efficient usage.
So far, it has been good. We haven't used it for that long and haven't had any issues. The pricing is average. It could be lower. There are still some improvements that could be leveraged in the future to make it even better. The response time could be better.
Microsoft Azure App Service has a lot of complexity because there are a lot of options and functionality. It is simple to become confused, there are many technical elements to learn before you can utilize the solution. If they could make the solution easier to use it would be a benefit. In an upcoming release, mobile device usage could be a better experience.
I would like to see some significant improvement in the technical support provision for this solution.
I want more transparency in billing. It would be better if we could understand and control the billing to customize it. Also, Microsoft should provide more guidance about the widgets and subsets of various products. The Microsoft portfolio is so huge that it's sometimes difficult to choose the correct option. There's always a chance we are paying more than necessary.
Microsoft Azure App Service could improve by having better integration and connectivity with other platforms. The solution has good integration with other large companies' solutions but there are smaller service platforms companies where there could be integrated better.
Microsoft Azure App Service could improve by having better integration with on-premise solutions.
Limited integration is an area for improvement in Microsoft Azure App Service. Another area for improvement in the platform is multi-language support. That still needs to be added because, at the moment, my team still has to work on specific Python languages whenever the API calls need to be configured. The pricing tier for Microsoft Azure App Service also has room for improvement because it significantly varies. For example, you have premium and dynamic pricing, and people on P2 should be offered dynamic pricing or the high-priced tier on offer could still be worked on. I want a lifecycle pipeline feature, similar to Azure Pipelines from Microsoft Azure App Service. For example, when configuring the pipelines, I should be able to configure the cloud security posture for a specific deployment. By default, there should be a prebuilt cloud security option that can be configured before moving into the production environment. Microsoft Azure App Service should also give you a clue regarding the risks. It would be best if you didn't have to connect to other modules because that wouldn't be as beneficial to platform users, mainly because Microsoft Azure App Service has a lot of security development kits.
The outbound connectivity is not great but can be improved because, on virtual machines, the Microsoft Azure App Service uses four or five outbound IPs. So basically, if you want to communicate with an external source, you can use outbound IPs. For example, you must whitelist the outbound IP when communicating with an SQL database externally. However, because it's a multi-tenant environment and other customer applications are being shared on a skills tab, there are always limitations in the smart port. So each customer has a particular allocated smart port, which they should exhaust. It helps to work with the code. Regardless of features like a firewall where they have a hub and an environment they have features like a front door which can increase the smart port's limits to about 64,000. Hence, it will be good to have one IP without needing to add any other infrastructure. Additionally, they can improve scaling the typical environment in terms of scalability. I believe the limit for the multi-tenant environment is about 20 to 30 maximum on the PV3. So if they can increase that, other than having these significant scaling limits for the Microsoft Azure App Service environment, which is about 200, that will also help. Also, dedicating one outbound IP for App Service will go a long way.
App Service sometimes becomes very slow to respond, and it can be difficult to find the issue causing this. Including more detailed error logs would be an improvement.
For now, I don't think there are any improvements to highlight.
In terms of room for improvement, ease of deployment would be an area that needs some focus. Azure does provide out-of-the-box deployment features, but I found that deploying to an App Service instance can be better in terms of more tools that could be available to perform a deployment.
Recently, we have used some scheduling and event management. From an IoT use case perspective, we're all good, however, we should have additional plugins.
The cost management of this solution could be better. We only receive estimations.
Price could be reduced. Particularly with Azure Web Apps. According to their current architecture, moving services from one Azure subscription to another is difficult. Customers can consume the Azure platform through a variety of subscriptions from various partners, financial visions, current political visions, and so on. Some services on the Microsoft Azure platform can be moved automatically from one subscription to another based on security and financial rules, while others cannot. Azure Web Apps are the type of service that does not automatically move from subscription to subscription, and region to region. A lot of manual labor must be performed by their organization, customer, and engineers, if necessary. They must pay too much attention to how to plan this, how to switch off, switch on, on which days, at what times, and so on. A lot of administrative work is done, but it's not very good. It would be fantastic if Microsoft morphed after my exit service, removing it from subscriptions and moving it to different regions, especially for that service.
If you're on the cloud, you just get a web interface without much detail for additional configuration or the authority to configure the root or system-level configuration. This is a weakness in the cloud version compared to desktop. In the next release, Microsoft should provide additional options for configuring the deployment environment.
The logging and monitoring could improve in Microsoft Azure App Service.
Initially, there were some rare instances when the server went down because it was deployed on Linux. There are some features that are not available on the Linux-based deployment, yet are available on Windows. This is something that I think Microsoft has now caught up.
The network side needs improvement. It has to be more stable. Sometimes we have issues with the network side when we expand the solution. You need to find stability in order to expand the solution properly. When we do that, or we add another app service through the app service plan, we have issues with the network, and we lose communication between our data center and the app service. The solution needs better integration capabilities on the network side. There should be more options, for example, to update the DNS server, straight to the app service.
There has been some building of pipelines where we've had to test and redesign a little so if there were maybe some easier to setup guides or more template data flows that would be an improvement. It would simplify the center processes. It would probably be impossible to have a template for everyone, but maybe there's some way to kind of simplify the initial stack and point frame for new users like ourselves, to make getting off the ground a little bit easier.
It's too early to really say what features are lacking at this point. I am new to the intervention and I find it difficult to find my way around the user interface. I have my own learning tool. However, it could be simpler for new users. The pricing could be a bit less.
The cost of the solution needs improvement.
I would like to see faster adoption and maybe they can give you some templates, so that we can deploy something and then modify the template. For instance, having templates for creating a website will make things faster and easier.
It is not unsual that we run into problems related to the deployment and post-installation. But Azure team is aware of these issues and continuously keeps improving the Azure stack.