New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Do you think the maximum pricing rules on VPS offers need to be reviewed?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Why limit things to VPS at all then? Might as well allow selling printer cartridges, dick enlargement pills, and condo timeshares.
Or we could stay specialized in our area of common interest which is budget servers.
I'd keep price limits where they are now. Really interesting offers that are outside the limit always find a way to get mentioned. I don't think we gained anything from raising the dedicated server price limit. And today's $7 VPS are very powerful compared to the ones from when that limit was set. If anything the upper limit should be made lower rather higher.
If everything counts as Low End, aren't we just left with Talk?
Of all people I would have thought you would have had a better response. How in the hell does a change or removal of a limit all of sudden mean the sale of printer cartridges.
Ah, LET, I have to keep reminding myself I never buy from providers here anymore or can stand the level of shit posting in every thread, so I should just keep my mouth shut and stay away.
There is strong chance this need is being driven by CC anyway.
$7 or lower please. This is LowEndTalk not HighEndTalk.
@trewq I totally hate you for even thinking about such thing, because this stands against the very name of this board, yet you had to go further and open a vote. Now please have balls, and remove the pricing rules as
peoplecompanies voted, so we can finally watch it all burn. Thank you in advance for the fine spectacle.no where near 143 active companies here
Mabe it's better to set a maximum price per GB ram instead of a maximum VPS price?
All true, but I would add that the original lowend spirit is still present on LET, even if the offers have changed over time, so I'm not sure that I understand the rationale for suddenly eliminating price limits now. Yes, people can choose to buy what they want with their own money, but this was true in the early days of LET as well. A price limit acts as an initial filter on offers, which is in harmony with the "do more with less" spirit of LET.
Again, my view is to keep the current price limits but to add an intermediate category for powerful VPSes such as @exception0x876's offer yesterday,
https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/158285/wishosting-new-32gb-ram-kvm-for-15-99-mo/p1 ,
which otherwise could not have been advertised by him. (Yes, an exception was granted after the fact by @trewq, but asking for exceptions and granting exceptions means administrative work that I personally would like to see avoided.)
You want to eliminate the price limit and let the buyers self-regulate. If that plan makes any sense, the obvious followup question is why stop there? Why not eliminate all limits? Then people can sell anything for any amount.
I myself don't support either of those plans. I like having a specialty market that focuses on the products that I want, rather than turning LET into another WHT or Aliexpress that has everything. So I'd rather keep all the limits where they are. Or make them lower rather than higher, to account for the falling cost of hardware.
Yeah should keep $7 limit
So we will be able to buy a VPS for more money, but with printer cartridges included.
Raise is to $10. Inflation and all.
Slow Inflation is always important in any industry. I believe , yes it should be reviewed again.
I think just remove the limits. I don't think it accomplishes much. If people don't like an overpriced offer, they won't buy it.
I mean actually we can have 256MB RAM for 7$/m but no 32GB RAM for 16$/m. Not sure which one is really lowend
Just look at all these unbiased accounts with Provider tag all for removing high price limits.
You can do what even CC couldn't. Kill the single unique factor about Low End Talk. GL.
The one asking this question/poll is, too, a provider
my vote is for change, if only for a lower amount
I agree It should be increased the only issue I see is if it is increased how we can prevent LET from becoming new WHT,
I mean once you remove the 7$ limit you will get much much more offers than you get now and as a result the offers section will be almost unusable (the offer will sink down in no time)
So if there is limit lift the rules of posing should be revised as well to make every offer count .
I have few notes about some o0f the schemes suggested here for determining the pricing:
A. for the suggestion that we make the price based on resources like x$/gb + Y$/TB and so on the issue with this system is that you will never measure quality of the service or location or network value, so by this system the offers eventually will be all in almost same location (cheapest) , with same network ( cheapest ) and again offers will be all about getting highest number for RAM or desk etc with quality going down.
B. for the suggestion that mods should review the offers I have 2 issues with it
1- can you trust the mods ? , I mean you can trust the mods now but remember that the mods dont own the form and all the mods can be replaced at any point of time . Then mostly the offers you see in LET will be very similar to the offers the mods in LEB like !!
2- it is too much work for the mods , which will mean mostly delays between having the offer and getting it posted
My thoughts:
a) I think having the limit is good and IMHO must be enforced for the newer entrants (who are less than a few years old - I'll leave the specific years value to decision by committee, but I think 2 or 3 seems like a good safety net)
b) I'm fine with market regulations and self policing but there's also a duty to minimise damage aka "do no harm" and by limiting the maximum on some of these deals, we're I think doing a service to the community in that we at least reduce the risk of the alpha something type beta hosters.
By doing this, we're at least policing things to some extent and ensuring that there's no blatant/outright swindling going on. This doesn't mean that the buyer can just absolve themselves of all due diligence - there's always caveat emptor.
LET is LET because of the community and I think we need to preserve who we are and what we stand for.
I like the idea of tiered price limits. <$7/mo no min requirements, $7.01-$10 require at least this much ram or disk, etc.
Really please let's not do that. Too complicated. If you haven't got a good sub-$7 offer you're not a low end provider and you're in the wrong place. If you have a good $7 offer, then post it and people can find your higher end offerings on their own. If you post a crap $7 offer to steer people toward higher end products that's gaming the system and at best it makes you look bad. But it hasn't happened often enough to be a real issue so far.
User ram and cpu requirements haven't been increased that much over the past few years, but costs and prices have dropped a lot, so $7 is already not really low end these days. SSD has made small VPS much more performant than older HDD plans at similar prices. HDD prices have dropped like crazy so quite large storage plans can be offered within the $7 limit. And if you have a REALLY amazing offer that is over the limit, just ask a mod to approve it before you post.
I don't mind the status quo but if there's a change, the new limit should be $4 to reflect the technology advances and competitive development in the low end sector since the $7 limit was first implemented. I remember having a $5/month 256MB KVM with 25GB(?) HDD at Frantech back when they were an aggressive price cutter. Now they're one of LET's more posh hosts (nowhere near lowest-tier pricing) and I have a 1GB slice with 20GB SSD with them for $3.50 and add-on HDD storage at $5/TB. That's a huge change.
I don't get it why ColoCrossing accepts something like this, or why they're willing to let other providers load this board with offers above $7 limit?
The day CC rolls out ipv6 will be the day I'd concider paying over $7/month for anything hosted in their DCs.
How about we limit the providers too?
No one allowed to post an offer if they are less than 3 years in business?
Just to reduce te summerhost
Register a company and not post any offers - just let it idle for a few years...
Best idling ideas..
Interesting. The trend with providers responses here seems to be either to completely take away all limits, or, to use (classical "dealer") certain items as limit breakers (RAM/Traffic volume).
What I see is that they do not want to get a bit more transparent about one certain - and interesting and important - factor, the processor. It seems important to them to avoid any kind of clarification and to keep what their vCores are in the shadows. Sad.
Good point.
Can you think of a way for hosting offers to exclude, or minimize the need for trial (and error) - testing yourself - speed, stability, reliability, security?
Can it be standardised in a way that you know what you can expect and so that offers are really comparable?
Not standardized per se, but it's usually not too hard to figure out what's being offered, and host reputation counts for something.
Basically cpu users either:
I echo what @bikegremlin just said.
In principle, it's a good idea, but in practice, not only do you have to decide on the terminology (about how to talk about the vCores) but then also to enforce it, which will invariably mean a lot of policing by the mods.
Just curious: suppose that a KVM offer states "2 vCores (shared)", where the type of processor is given. How would you want this reformulated?