So your website and this comment seem to be highlighting automatic scaling as the major advantage of the system. But I'm not really getting why you think it is worth highlighting. It almost seems like the opposite, with scalability being the weak point.
As far as I can see, your architecture is explicitly limited to a single instance of each app at a time, so there is almost no scope for scaling at all in the first place. The only reason it would probably not be an issue in practice is that the request limits are absurdly low. The story is further weakened by no mention anywhere of what happens when the paid for quota is exceeded -- this seems like a key detail that's completely glossed over.
I can see the point of selling a system like this to less technical users based on an ease of use or the conceptual simplicity of an application as a filesystem. Even if the suggested advantages, such as no need for deploying code and easy copy-paste for starting new projects, make me shudder a bit. But selling on scalability just makes no sense, it almost comes across as snake oil.
As far as I can see, your architecture is explicitly limited to a single instance of each app at a time, so there is almost no scope for scaling at all in the first place. The only reason it would probably not be an issue in practice is that the request limits are absurdly low. The story is further weakened by no mention anywhere of what happens when the paid for quota is exceeded -- this seems like a key detail that's completely glossed over.
I can see the point of selling a system like this to less technical users based on an ease of use or the conceptual simplicity of an application as a filesystem. Even if the suggested advantages, such as no need for deploying code and easy copy-paste for starting new projects, make me shudder a bit. But selling on scalability just makes no sense, it almost comes across as snake oil.