Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Do you think the maximum pricing rules on VPS offers need to be reviewed?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Do you think the maximum pricing rules on VPS offers need to be reviewed?

trewqtrewq Administrator, Moderator, Provider

Hi All,

Do you think the maximum pricing rules on VPS offers need to be reviewed?

This has been bought up by different people on and off over the last little while.

Lets put it to a vote, this isn't about discussing how it might be calculated or what it might be raised to, just if a change is needed.

Please vote in the poll below, if you have any additional thoughts on this please post below so we can discuss.

Brendan

Poll
  1. Do you think the maximum pricing rules on VPS offers need to be reviewed?183 votes
    1. Yes
      63.93%
    2. No
      36.07%
«134

Comments

  • yes

    Thanked by 1NobodyInteresting

    lurking in the shadows like a wombat or some shit

  • A definite yes.

    Thanked by 1SirFoxy
  • Rhetoric question : what is the difference between a fat vps or a dedi ? Don't really make sense to limit vps price limit most offer to 4GB Ram when you can offer Dedi at like 89$/m. Of course, new rule will need to keep price cheap, but yeah ...

  • I'm still the fan of $7/m rule, however I suggest that offers below $0.7/GB should have no upper limits, so we don't miss on some great deals.

    I live in harmony with people. They hate me and I hate them.
    AlphaSucks | Proxmox on Kimsufi | Hiding Proxmox behind NGINX | Securing SSH

  • sanvitsanvit Member
    edited June 2019

    +1 on MrPsycho's idea :)

    Plus offers below $3.5/TB storage

    Thanked by 4Ympker chrisp ITLabs MrEd
  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @ben47955 said:
    Rhetoric question : what is the difference between a fat vps or a dedi ?

    Performance overhead due to virtualization


    Suggestion: Alternatively we can split them into 3 category: "Top Provider", "Reputable Provider" and "Provider" depends on how long and how active they are in the community (Top Provider is still only possible via poll). Each of them have different maximum limit.

    I am so f*cking tired

  • 0.7/GB nice idea

    Remember the value of LET is purely based on its traffic.

  • FAT32 said: Performance overhead due to virtualization

    I know that. I just mean there are something between small vps and dedi. For the same reason max price on the dedi was raised, 1GB Ram is not the same price than 32GB. It's normal to see some difference in pricing. Price was raised to allow more powerful dedi, I don't see why we can't do the same with vps.

    Thanked by 1FAT32
  • Honestly i dont see the point of pricing limits at all. Deals either good or its not, maybe instead of a price minimum implrment a downvote system for providers where if they post x many bad offers as voted by community (negative score) then they are restricted from posting offers for x time period. Pricing maximums dont really work with all the different factors at play from location to specs

  • I'm voting no because when I was apart of LEB and we revised the pricing offers in the hopes of more exotic locations or exciting deals... the only things that changed were the price. The packages were the same but just more costly. The same buffalo deals with an extra couple bucks added on.

    I would prefer it be left as is and maybe once a month there is an announcement post that stays up for a small period of time (e.g 2 weeks?) with exclusive offers outside of this pricing limit that can be submitted. E.g Providers submit June 1st > June 30th and then July 1st > July 14th a post goes up with the compiled offers. This also allows for some filtering of offers too.

    Then again I also disagreed with the dedicated server price increase initially as I felt the same servers would get posted with $10 or $20 more added on top but that hasn't really happened.

    I understand the suggestion I've made is a bit more work than a basic price increase but I personally think it would be better all round.

    Thanked by 3Adam1 Erik2 switsys
  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Provider

    People don't come here for low end servers, they come here for low priced servers. Maybe a complete rebranding is in order.

    -Joe @ SecureDragon - LEB's Powered by Wyvern in FL, CO, CA, IL, NJ, GA, OR, TX, and AZ
    Need backup space? Check out BackupDragon
  • What are we if without the $7 meme?

    Thanked by 2uptime MasonR
  • Maybe they can post offers above $7 as long as they post one under $7 as well.

    Thanked by 1caracal

    Slowly working to cure my VPS addiction.

  • uptimeuptime Member

    I do like the $7 anchor, would prefer to keep it more or less as is ...

    but

    I also like interesting offers possibly with dedicated cores and more ram and ssd or storage - even up to something like $20 or whatever (still less than most normal entry-level dedi prices).

    Maybe a special "mid-end" category - could even be just on a by-request case-by-case basis, assuming that won't be too much added work for mods - just to see how it goes for a while.

    Thanked by 2cybertech ITLabs

    the Amitz.party lives on!

  • I will suggest to make a tier :

    Tier 1 , vps with ram less or equal to 8GB ram must under $7/month

    Tier 2, vps with 8.1-16GB RAM must under $14/month

    Tier 3, vps with more than 16GB RAM must under $20/month

  • The $7 limit should stay. If there are a deal that is above the limit, the provider should submit the deal to the mod for manual verification, whether the deal is let worthy or not.

    Thanked by 3rm_ TheLinuxBug switsys
  • jsgjsg Member

    I'd suggest to define what a low end VPS is and then build on that.

    If RAM (in GB) multiplied by vCores < 5 -> low end VPS, max price/mo 7$
    If Core is dedicated price limit is 50% higher.

    Similar for dedis, e.g. Xeon (or other real server class) cores times RAM (in GB) with 2 TB/mo traffic ~ base price/mo
    For Atom cores - 33%, For Arm cores - 50%
    and so on ...

    Plus @FAT32 's categories where the above are for medium providers ("reputable"), top-providers can ask 10% more, simple providers (either new or questionable reputation) have a max price/mo of 10% lower.

    Why? Because I like the 7$ rule - but I see that it might be useful to link product, provider quality and max. price. Plus I see that larger offers are at a disadvantage here and I think we should provide room for those while still maintaining our line that offers here must be attractive price-wise.

    Thanked by 2bikegremlin Falzo

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Provider
    edited June 2019

    @jsg said:
    I'd suggest to define what a low end VPS is and then build on that.

    If RAM (in GB) multiplied by vCores < 5 -> low end VPS, max price/mo 7$
    If Core is dedicated price limit is 50% higher.

    Similar for dedis, e.g. Xeon (or other real server class) cores times RAM (in GB) with 2 TB/mo traffic ~ base price/mo
    For Atom cores - 33%, For Arm cores - 50%
    and so on ...

    Plus @FAT32 's categories where the above are for medium providers ("reputable"), top-providers can ask 10% more, simple providers (either new or questionable reputation) have a max price/mo of 10% lower.

    Why? Because I like the 7$ rule - but I see that it might be useful to link product, provider quality and max. price. Plus I see that larger offers are at a disadvantage here and I think we should provide room for those while still maintaining our line that offers here must be attractive price-wise.

    Perhaps the rules shouldn't be that specific, but I agree with the general philosophy.

    When LowEndBox/LowEndTalk just got started, a fixed price limit was totally reasonable, because there was only so much you could offer for that price, and so you got a community of people trying to get the most out of their limited resources.

    Over time, the whole process of (shitty) VPS hosting has become so optimized that a fixed price limit has just turned into a race to the bottom; who can offer the highest dopamine-inducing resource numbers within the $7 limit? That's certainly driven away quality providers who don't really want to compete in that, and only incentivizes shitty unsustainable fly-by-night providers like summer hosts and the many ColoCrossing ventures.

    So yeah, a change is needed. This community could maybe be saved by changing the rules into something that emphasizes quality of services (and perhaps efficient usage of resources), moving away from the biggest-RAM-for-the-buck trend.

    Of course, this board is owned by ColoCrossing now, so that's really not likely to happen at all. Whatever change to the rules occurs, it'll certainly not incentivize against unsustainable ColoCrossing hosts. I hopefully don't need to explain why...

    Edit: Also, obviously, a strong vote against just raising the maximum. We've seen where that leads to, and it was pretty much exactly as predicted; the offers didn't get better.

  • angstromangstrom Member
    edited June 2019

    Other than tradition, I don't see why the $7 rule is so holy.

    Times change, there are now "big VPS" offers that don't fit well with the $7 rule.

    Keeping it simple, I would change the upper limit to at least $9.

    Some of the refinements suggested above are ingenious, but they would invariably require more work and policing from the already overworked mods.

    Thanked by 1lovelyserver

    "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

  • angstrom said: Other than tradition, I don't see why the $7 rule is so holy.

    Because people are cheapskates. If I can get 512 MB for $7.00, I will never go with 512 MB for $7.01. This will be engraved on my tomb.

    But, given that $7 is standing as de-facto for lowend why not revise this and make it $10. Let summer hosts take more, steam games getting expensive...

    #!/Bashblog.net | Free Wordpress Hosting | If you can't idle, what's the point?

  • jsgjsg Member

    @joepie91

    Oh, my post was just meant as a rough sekeleton to show what I mean. Certainly the numbers might be discussed, adapted, changed and the resulting rules should be way better presented that I did.

    The base line is (a) to cover more variety, and (b) reasonable quality for an attractive price.

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • @joepie91 said: Of course, this board is owned by ColoCrossing now, so that's really not likely to happen at all.

    Just to note that LEB has had a $10 limit for VPSes for some time now: https://lowendbox.com/submit-an-offer/

    (The limit isn't always enforced, but this is another issue.)

    "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

  • Though there are many interesting suggestions, most of them will result in a logistical nightmare for the mods here. In my opinion, if the max price limit has to be revised, the $7 limit should be kept for new providers, while providers who have been around for 2-3+ years can have a higher limit (eg. $10).

    There's not much reason to having way higher limits because most of the people looking for vps in offers here don't require great specs. Those that have more requirements tend to either post requests, look around themselves, or make the jump to dedicated.

  • I believe let prices should be decreased, not increased...

    A simple uptime dashboard using UptimeRobot API https://upy.duo.ovh
    Currently using VPS from BuyVM, Gullo's, Hetzner, HostHatch, HostSailor, HostSolutions, InceptionHosting, LetBox, MaxKVM, MrVM, VirMach.

  • dynamodynamo Member
    edited June 2019

    @chocolateshirt said:
    I believe let prices should be decreased, not increased...

    +1. As this forum is basically about low end boxes (low spec/low priced) and you get a lot more hardware for much less these days in comparison to when the forum was started and this $7 limit was placed, the limit should now be lowered and not raised. Make it $5.

  • I vote for yes,
    for some location ex Hongkong, Indonesia, China, even US, EU location $7 just impossible to offer reliable server.

    Thanked by 1lovelyserver

    We only support unsupported OS!

  • LOL

    I am no longer active here, find me at https://talk.lowendspirit.com

  • tetechtetech Member

    Should be lowered.

    Thanked by 1Erik2
  • I have never been in the hosting business so I don't claim to understand how everything works... But it seems to me that inflation is going on worldwide, labor costs are rising, and electricity costs are rising. At the same time, though hardware costs and networking costs have gone down, it's not as if providers aren't providing better value over time. And you guys want the $7 limit to be lowered? For example, 5+ years ago, getting 1 Gbps shared ports on a vps was a rarity. You used to get maybe 1 GB ram on a kvm for around $5 monthly and that would have been a decent deal, but nowadays you can get 4 GB ram if you look hard enough, and you have more bandwidth, faster cpus etc. at the same price of $5.

  • LeeLee Member

    Why have a limit at all?

    Thanked by 1AnthonySmith
This discussion has been closed.