Howdy, Stranger!

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

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
We're about to launch something very new at OnApp...
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

We're about to launch something very new at OnApp...

...and I would love to get you on board.

If you know OnApp, you will know that, over the years, we’ve kind of moved away from enabling cloud for the SME/SoHo hoster, and we’ve been dealing more with larger MSPs and Telcos.

While that's great, and it’s been fantastic for us as a company, it has also been kind of bugging me that we weren’t as focused on hosters as we used to be - I talked about this in a Q&A at LowEndBox quite recently.

OnApp was born in the hosting industry, and I’ve always wanted to get back to a version of OnApp that suits that hoster market, in terms of the entry point, price-wise, and also in terms of functionality. It's just been too complicated, capex intensive and time consuming.

Well, that time has come! We’re getting close to the launch now, and I wanted you guys to be first to know… there’s a sign-up form at onapp.com/let.
If you register there, I'll make sure you're first in line for a free trial :)

Thanks,

:)
D

Thanked by 2tmyers mrTom

www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

«1

Comments

  • i feel special

    Thanked by 1ditlev
  • HostMediaHostMedia Member, Provider

    Interesting to hear what is being developed!

    Thanked by 1ditlev
  • ExpertVMExpertVM Member, Provider

    Exciting to know what is brewing ahead

    Thanked by 1ditlev
    ExpertVM.com - Singapore Based Low End Provider.
  • Thanks :)
    It's been +1y of intense development, so I can not wait to show you!

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • "a new cloud platform for hosts" ah it not for me as an end-user.

    Thanked by 1kkrajk

    We only support unsupported OS!

  • @sibaper said:
    "a new cloud platform for hosts" ah it not for me as an end-user.

    Nope - this is build specifically for hosters.

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • stratagemstratagem Member, Provider

    Interested to see what's coming. Have you any other tidbits of info you can share?

    Thanked by 1ditlev
  • TejyTejy Member
    edited February 12

    Looks exciting! Hope that the pricing model won't be as cPanel, or SolusIO!
    Any screenshot, or small element to tease us? :D

    Thanked by 1ditlev

    Working for a world-famous hosting company. | Yes, my profile picture is Contabo desktop icon.

  • Mr_TomMr_Tom Member, Provider

    Is there a confirmation email that's sent? Or just the confirmation on the web page? (just making sure lol).

    VM Specialist - Custom, managed and storage VM solutions | Latest Offers

  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator

    @ditlev it's awesome that you're paying attention to the smaller hosts in the industry. Good luck with this new project.

    Jon Biloh
  • @Mr_Tom said:
    Is there a confirmation email that's sent? Or just the confirmation on the web page? (just making sure lol).

    If it helps, I didn't receive any confirmation email.

    Thanked by 1Mr_Tom

    I recommend Hetzner Cloud (Referral - €20 free)
    I have servers at Hetzner, Scaleway and BuyVM

  • muhahahaha I know what it is :D

    Are you in need of an urgent help? 10 minutes response time!
    EmergencySupport - Professional Server Management and R1Soft Backup Services

  • seriesnseriesn Member, Top Provider

    @ditlev hoping for a drop in replacement for virtualizor and solusvm without the need for mass migration :)

  • @andrewn said:
    muhahahaha I know what it is :D

    What is it?

  • must be the cloud dot net

  • In about two weeks you'll know more. Thank you for the +100 signups so far. I can not wait to show you what we are up to.

    Thanked by 1nyamenk

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 13

    I told that to solus at wht and I told it again here

    Per CPU Core billing model is not reflecting modern days CPUs

    In the past I payed about $115-130 for E3-12xx with big for the time SSDs which are 4 non (HT) cores and maybe prices per CPU core was ok for that times

    Now days I can get 24 or 20 (2 x 10) (non HT) for very close to that amount of $ (First / Second Gen AMD EPYCS (even some 3rd gen 32 non ht for under 200 If i want such ) and old super expensive Intel's + some Ryzens 16 non ht and 12 even cheaper) and companies that build software products with per core price even at $5 is bringing the price for that very close to the price of hardware

    Even the price is/ was ok for E3s As our main business is to sell access to CPU RAM and Space - it is just better to get 2 times the hardware and use other software that has single fee per node and be double times more competitive to someone that pays 1 time more the hardware fees for software failing into the per core model

    Just my 2c

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • @ditlev said:
    In about two weeks you'll know more. Thank you for the +100 signups so far. I can not wait to show you what we are up to.

    Does the pricing model caters to let providers?

    My list of reliable providers :
    Ramnode : HostHatch : Dediserve : Serverica : CloudCone : OnePoundWebHosting : AlphaVps : Lunanode : Few more under testing!

  • @coolice said: Just my 2c

    The board of directors will take your 2c to their pockets. Thank you.

    Thanked by 2TimboJones jetchirag

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

  • @LTniger said:

    @coolice said: Just my 2c

    The board of directors will take your 2c to their pockets. Thank you.

    Btw Maybe it is a coincidence but about a month and half (oct 1, 20) after I posted the same about Solus.io (08-08-20), in thread about their product at WHT they dropped the price from €5 per core to €2.50 :)

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • @coolice said:

    @LTniger said:

    @coolice said: Just my 2c

    The board of directors will take your 2c to their pockets. Thank you.

    Btw Maybe it is a coincidence but about a month and half (oct 1, 20) after I posted the same about Solus.io (08-08-20), in thread about their product at WHT they dropped the price from €5 per core to €2.50 :)

    did that pricing work for you?

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • HostMediaHostMedia Member, Provider

    @ditlev said:

    @coolice said:

    @LTniger said:

    @coolice said: Just my 2c

    The board of directors will take your 2c to their pockets. Thank you.

    Btw Maybe it is a coincidence but about a month and half (oct 1, 20) after I posted the same about Solus.io (08-08-20), in thread about their product at WHT they dropped the price from €5 per core to €2.50 :)

    did that pricing work for you?

    I don’t think even that pricing works for most hosts that just want a newer version of SolusVM.

    Per node pricing will always be easier to budget for and allow hosts to expand. It would also provide the software provider will a wider range customer base to sell too.

    Thanked by 1stratagem
  • stratagemstratagem Member, Provider

    Per core pricing would be closer to acceptable if the software quality/features warrantied it. Depends on what they're going to offer I think, if it's 'just' another Solus/Virtualizor then per node pricing definitely.

  • ditlevditlev Member
    edited February 14

    @stratagem said:
    Per core pricing would be closer to acceptable if the software quality/features warrantied it. Depends on what they're going to offer I think, if it's 'just' another Solus/Virtualizor then per node pricing definitely.

    I guess it depends on what business models and revenue streams the platform enables.

    Also (and this is the chief complain for OnApp in the LET segment), startup cost and CAPEX is another major hurdle for many.
    So, it's not just the ongoing cost and fee structure - but also server requirements, time to market, simplicity of the management etc.

    :)
    D

    Thanked by 1coreflux

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • stratagemstratagem Member, Provider

    Thanks @ditlev - much appreciate the response. That does to me sound like it's going to be similar to cloud.net (hosted elsewhere so no servers/capex to worry about) - let's wait and see what the reveal brings in that regard.

    Thanked by 1ditlev
  • ditlevditlev Member
    edited February 14

    @stratagem said:
    Thanks @ditlev - much appreciate the response. That does to me sound like it's going to be similar to cloud.net (hosted elsewhere so no servers/capex to worry about) - let's wait and see what the reveal brings in that regard.

    today cloud.net is awesome for large private clouds. Average basketsize is well beyond $10k/mo. What we are doing here is very different :)

    Thanked by 1stratagem

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 14

    @ditlev said:

    @coolice said:

    @LTniger said:

    @coolice said: Just my 2c

    The board of directors will take your 2c to their pockets. Thank you.

    Btw Maybe it is a coincidence but about a month and half (oct 1, 20) after I posted the same about Solus.io (08-08-20), in thread about their product at WHT they dropped the price from €5 per core to €2.50 :)

    did that pricing work for you?

    Thank you for the response:

    No as I use virtualization for 2 main scenarios:

    1. to to host our shared hosting severs 1 VM per node (with ZFS storage replication at couple of minutes to reserves ) additionally to RPO 5 minutes failover capability our plan is when next generation hardware is available at the same price point we currently pay - to migrate to such passing benefits to our customers (faster cores, bigger plans with more storage) to stay competitive and eventually to make another buck from the more added cores :) without changing any other expenses

    Price per core directly add to our costs and that is unreasonble long term as we plan to do such jumps couple of times during the live of Cloud Linux 8 (it is RTO ~ 5 minutes process and can be done with zero RPO even with storage replication technique )

    1. To sell high end managed VDS with 100% guaranteed cores (means that we do not mind customer to push all available cores to 100% 24/7 during the contracted period if they do not want to scale up. Price per core just add to cost per client as we do not share cores to multiple clients to offset that cost... it can be ok for that scenario but I'm more ok to pay per socket / node to support the virtulization software development that gives us the functions we need

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • Thanks for your input, this will be interesting!

    :)
    D

    @coolice said:

    @ditlev said:

    @coolice said:

    @LTniger said:

    @coolice said: Just my 2c

    The board of directors will take your 2c to their pockets. Thank you.

    Btw Maybe it is a coincidence but about a month and half (oct 1, 20) after I posted the same about Solus.io (08-08-20), in thread about their product at WHT they dropped the price from €5 per core to €2.50 :)

    did that pricing work for you?

    Thank you for the response:

    No as I use virtualization for 2 main scenarios:

    1. to to host our shared hosting severs 1 VM per node (with ZFS storage replication at couple of minutes to reserves ) additionally to RPO 5 minutes failover capability our plan is when next generation hardware is available at the same price point we currently pay - to migrate to such passing benefits to our customers (faster cores, bigger plans with more storage) to stay competitive and eventually to make another buck from the more added cores :) without changing any other expenses

    Price per core directly add to our costs and that is unreasonble long term as we plan to do such jumps couple of times during the live of Cloud Linux 8 (it is RTO ~ 5 minutes process and can be done with zero RPO even with storage replication technique )

    1. To sell high end managed VDS with 100% guaranteed cores (means that we do not mind customer to push all available cores to 100% 24/7 during the contracted period if they do not want to scale up. Price per core just add to cost per client as we do not share cores to multiple clients to offset that cost... it can be ok for that scenario but I'm more ok to pay per socket / node to support the virtulization software development that gives us the functions we need
    Thanked by 1coolice

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member
    edited February 15

    @coolice said:
    it can be ok for that scenario but I'm more ok to pay per socket / node to support the virtulization software development that gives us the functions we need

    Switching to core pricing is exactly because scaling is done by more cores now, not more sockets. Paying per core allows them to scale with you as you do better, not do worse for them while being integral to your success.

    What your actual problem is, is low quality/efficiency hardware or the price per core, not the model so much.

  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 15

    @TimboJones said:

    @coolice said:
    it can be ok for that scenario but I'm more ok to pay per socket / node to support the virtulization software development that gives us the functions we need

    Switching to core pricing is exactly because scaling is done by more cores now, not more sockets. Paying per core allows them to scale with you as you do better, not do worse for them while being integral to your success.

    What your actual problem is, is low quality/efficiency hardware or the price per core, not the model so much.

    I do not calculate in it that way... I pay $115 -130 per hosting node for hardware and I'm totally ok with paying 10% from hardware price for virtualization solution which brings me additional features we need...

    However I'm not ok from next year when we jump hardware... to start paying 60% of the hardware price because that will be the price for a bit old hardware has (there was allready some offers at hetzner auctions with €115 some EPYCs 7401p 24/48 with 2 x 1,92 SSD) so i believe that next year we will see more offers on that price point from other providers

    and as currently Hetzner offer brand new with 2 x 1,92 SSD AMD EPYC 7502P 32 (64 HT) Cores with for $189 I belive that in 3 years when second hardware jump is planned that will be on my price point with bigger drives or even better CPU will become available

    So 3 years from now the price of the virtualization solution will become 80% from my hardware price while they will have exact same expenses to create same software for the same priced server....

    I totally believe that is wrong per software provider to try to be part of my business as they do not have any expenses per one of my clients... and I have expenses per client ... It is the same as Game devs to start to ask more per game if you have better videocard and can play on high / ultra than on medium

    P.S on the old Onapp price that $189 /mo server will pay $320 for the onapp license single node (and you need 3 to have micro cloud ) ... which is close to 180% of the hardware prices - and that is things that stagnate industry to go forward

    And if the completion choose to go open source (Opne Stack as big boys) or something cheaper they can literally offer 3 times more resources with the same expenses at the same price for the end customer as you with same level of node density which will make you noncompetitive

    and that provider to go forward with you is the most unnatural thing for the IT industry thing I heard...
    in that industry provider always pass benefits from newer better to customers.... my first VPS provider charged me $40 for a single shared core 256MB RAM, 3 GB space Virtuozzo in 2005 if they decide to grow with me currently prices will be the same :)

    Thanked by 2LightBlade angelius

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • I actually understand your point, I somehow feel the same way with Salesforce and a lot of other SaaS businesses. Why does salesforce charge me more per seat? I know their incremental cost of me adding a seat is close to zero...

    Same can be said about most recurring/SaaS business models. What we are all (us selling recurring software licenses) doing is to spread the cost of running a development team across the usage of the code that the team develops. You can always discuss if CPU Cores is the right 'currency', and I am honestly not sure it is, however I think it is fair that those customers that use (and hence benefit most) from the code that my team produces should be those that pay most of the cost of that team.

    Yes, we could go back to old-school perpetual licenses, but for most of the hosting/LET world that would not be realistic in terms of CAPEX. At OnApp we have +120 highly talented people at a cost well above $1m/mo, a perpetual license would have to be very very expensive to cover cost ongoingly.

    At OnApp we feel that some sort of usage based billing is the right and fair model.

    @coolice said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @coolice said:
    it can be ok for that scenario but I'm more ok to pay per socket / node to support the virtulization software development that gives us the functions we need

    Switching to core pricing is exactly because scaling is done by more cores now, not more sockets. Paying per core allows them to scale with you as you do better, not do worse for them while being integral to your success.

    What your actual problem is, is low quality/efficiency hardware or the price per core, not the model so much.

    I do not calculate in it that way... I pay $115 -130 per hosting node for hardware and I'm totally ok with paying 10% from hardware price for virtualization solution which brings me additional features we need...

    However I'm not ok from next year when we jump hardware... to start paying 60% of the hardware price because that will be the price for a bit old hardware has (there was allready some offers at hetzner auctions with €115 some EPYCs 7401p 24/48 with 2 x 1,92 SSD) so i believe that next year we will see more offers on that price point from other providers

    and as currently Hetzner offer brand new with 2 x 1,92 SSD AMD EPYC 7502P 32 (64 HT) Cores with for $189 I belive that in 3 years when second hardware jump is planned that will be on my price point with bigger drives or even better CPU will become available

    So 3 years from not it will be 80% from my hardware price while they will have exact same expenses to create same software for the same priced server....

    I totally believe that is wrong per software provider to try to be part of my business as they do not have any expenses per one of my clients... and I have expenses per client ... It is the same as Game devs to start to ask more per game if you have better videocard and can play on high / ultra than on medium

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 15

    @ditlev said:
    I actually understand your point, I somehow feel the same way with Salesforce and a lot of other SaaS businesses. Why does salesforce charge me more per seat? I know their incremental cost of me adding a seat is close to zero...

    Same can be said about most recurring/SaaS business models. What we are all (us selling recurring software licenses) doing is to spread the cost of running a development team across the usage of the code that the team develops. You can always discuss if CPU Cores is the right 'currency', and I am honestly not sure it is, however I think it is fair that those customers that use (and hence benefit most) from the code that my team produces should be those that pay most of the cost of that team.

    Yes, we could go back to old-school perpetual licenses, but for most of the hosting/LET world that would not be realistic in terms of CAPEX. At OnApp we have +120 highly talented people at a cost well above $1m/mo, a perpetual license would have to be very very expensive to cover cost ongoingly.

    At OnApp we feel that some sort of usage based billing is the right and fair model.

    IDK for the Salesforce as I'm not familiar with it

    And I actually can justify SAAS to some point - as they have expenses per customer / per site visitor (if someone run shopify shop and and some nice offer is shared on Groupon and its clones or in big facebook groups that can bring thousand of visitors to that site (even to couple of thousand online) for a day which will be a spike in usage and they got to serve that or fail as a service for $29 a month ...

    but when solution is self hosted that expenses (per customer / per site visitor) do not exist for the software provider so price that charge that is nor relevant... (again there can be one unlimited price with which software providers is happy and cheaper limited prices - customers will decide if they like that price)

    Intel was stagnating the IT industry with their CPU with 4-6 cores on a normal prices and super expensive multi cores 10-12 for about 8 years (v2 to v6 CPUs are not that different if there was not the hardware bugs which leads microcode patches which slowdown additionally the older ones... newer are just a bit more power efficient and not that much more powerful ...

    Your prices was relevant for that period of time, but now days AMD start to glue cores... at first twice the number of cores than Intel with similar power and now days 4-6 times more and even faster than Intel ones so it is time to move forward ...

    I do not know which is correct - but if 80% of the nodes of you customers are 4 or 6 cores you maybe can keep such fixed price at that price level... No one will complaint that price is not relevant to modern CPUs for which they pay the same price as for the 4-6 core Intel ones from couple of years ago and maybe introduce limited offers for older / smaller servers

    Thanked by 1angelius

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • You have to remember there's a cut off point - once you reach it, it's cheaper to hire in Openstack expertise and training than pay for licensing for things like Onapp, as there's no additional licence cost.

    Problem with this per core model is that once you're racking 64 core compute nodes, the licence cost is ridiculous.

  • I think that in couple of years 64 cores will be under $200/mo market (my believe is based on that we now have $189 offer for 32 cores )

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • @coolice said:
    I think that in couple of years 64 cores will be under $200/mo market (my believe is based on that we now have $189 offer for 32 cores )

    @ditlev said:

    You can always discuss if CPU Cores is the right 'currency', and I am honestly not sure it is,

    @ditlev said:

    At OnApp we feel that some sort of usage based billing is the right and fair model.

    Which part do you disagree with?
    That pricing should be usage based?
    Or that pricing should be core based?

    :)
    D

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • So, just some marketing bla bla and the same old shit pricing, nice.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Provider

    @HostMedia said:

    @ditlev said:

    @coolice said:

    @LTniger said:

    @coolice said: Just my 2c

    The board of directors will take your 2c to their pockets. Thank you.

    Btw Maybe it is a coincidence but about a month and half (oct 1, 20) after I posted the same about Solus.io (08-08-20), in thread about their product at WHT they dropped the price from €5 per core to €2.50 :)

    did that pricing work for you?

    I don’t think even that pricing works for most hosts that just want a newer version of SolusVM.

    Per node pricing will always be easier to budget for and allow hosts to expand. It would also provide the software provider will a wider range customer base to sell too.

    Big issue is onapp is going to eat their own lunch with that.

    Whatever they release is going to be a crippled full blown onapp.

    Don’t expect clustered storage, high availability, etc. basically features people go to onapp for.

    Francisco

    BuyVM - Free DirectAdmin, Softaculous, & Blesta! / Anycast Support! / Windows 2008, 2012, & 2016! / Unmetered Bandwidth!
    BuyShared - Shared & Reseller Hosting / cPanel + Softaculous + CloudLinux / Pure SSD! / Free Dedicated IP Address
  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 16

    @ditlev said:

    @coolice said:
    I think that in couple of years 64 cores will be under $200/mo market (my believe is based on that we now have $189 offer for 32 cores )

    @ditlev said:

    You can always discuss if CPU Cores is the right 'currency', and I am honestly not sure it is,

    @ditlev said:

    At OnApp we feel that some sort of usage based billing is the right and fair model.

    Which part do you disagree with?
    That pricing should be usage based?
    Or that pricing should be core based?

    :)
    D

    I do not disagree I see it right if a license to have Onapp for brand new server with nice low-mid range $600-700 CPU was 40 bux in the past, (IDK your current prices as they are hidden) license for nice new low mid range server with $600-700 CPU should be $40 not 120 (Ryzen 3900) that is the way industry goes forward so maybe fixed price as this will be your future as in couple years with great probability nice midrange on that price will have 24 cores ....

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 16

    I just download OpenNebula versus OpenStack - Competitive Pricing Review

    for 64 cores nodes with premium level support will be on par for Canonical Open Statck even if the price is €2,5 ($3) per core even everything else is included for free

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • @coolice said:

    @ditlev said:

    @coolice said:
    I think that in couple of years 64 cores will be under $200/mo market (my believe is based on that we now have $189 offer for 32 cores )

    @ditlev said:

    You can always discuss if CPU Cores is the right 'currency', and I am honestly not sure it is,

    @ditlev said:

    At OnApp we feel that some sort of usage based billing is the right and fair model.

    Which part do you disagree with?
    That pricing should be usage based?
    Or that pricing should be core based?

    :)
    D

    I do not disagree I see it right if a license to have Onapp for brand new server with nice low-mid range $600-700 CPU was 40 bux in the past, (IDK your current prices as they are hidden) license for nice new low mid range server with $600-700 CPU should be $40 not 120 (Ryzen 3900) that is the way industry goes forward so maybe fixed price as this will be your future as in couple years with great probability nice midrange on that price will have 24 cores ....

    whoosh

    Please see business model from their point of view to be sustainable and not just because you expect it. You're being irrational because of your minimal business skills.

    Tl;dr you expect them to fix the price despite selling less and less licenses due to hardware being able to do more. Why you'd think their costs are fixed makes no sense to me.

  • Are we there yet?

  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 17

    @TimboJones said:
    whoosh

    Please see business model from their point of view to be sustainable and not just because you expect it. You're being irrational because of your minimal business skills.

    Tl;dr you expect them to fix the price despite selling less and less licenses due to hardware being able to do more. Why you'd think their costs are fixed makes no sense to me.

    In this business you pass the savings to customers - that is how it works or market makes you irrelevant 256 MB Vz VPS was $ 40/mo once upon a time - unmanaged or you add free stuff to the offer too keep it relevant (buy 10 nodes get 15 etc)

    if a provider of the providers refuse to make that they are stagnating their customers and smart ones will start to drop them - first partially (switch storage to ceph at first) which will increase down spiral then one day when they bough or lease new hardware entirely (without notice) they will do new setup and migrate customers there ...

    1. I write that to get a bargain for the providers here :)
    2. And to help Onapp to avoid disaster in just couple of years

    All big biz cloud software providers charge per CPU pair / Socket if the new secret price of Onapp is $6 per core the numbers are:

    32 Cores x $6 per core ×10 nodes × 12 months is $23040 for a year add $100 for the controller and calculate storage as free

    It is on par with Canonical Open Stack + Premium Support that includes OS support

    and 50% more expensive than Open Nebula + Premium Support that includes OS support too

    I do not think storage s is free with Onapp and I do not think that they include OS support

    So Onapp is allready on cut off point for 32 cores with $6 per core for Open Stack + Premium support and if the price is $4.50 per core a bit over the price for Open Nebula + Premium Support

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • Thanks for your perspectives on all this. It's not a straight forward discussion, and for cloud service providers I do not think that OpenStack or Open Nebula are like for like deployments compared with OnApp. We are written specifically for hosters/CSPs and every feature we develop are build with you in mind. The same can not be said for OpenStack or Open Nebula, whom are more predominant with enterprise or large private cloud deployments.

    Also, for this new initiative (re the original post) we are releasing we are introducing a fundamental switch in how pricing works, and how cloud platform is delivered. It's effectively a new category we are bringing to market. For one, the concept of 'cores' as a currency is gone.

    All that being said, the points from both @coolice and @TimboJones are really good and relevant.

    Oh, and:

    @coolice said:
    I do not think storage s is free with Onapp and I do not think that they include OS support

    OnApp storage is actually included in all our packages today.

    :)
    D

    @coolice said:

    @TimboJones said:
    whoosh

    Please see business model from their point of view to be sustainable and not just because you expect it. You're being irrational because of your minimal business skills.

    Tl;dr you expect them to fix the price despite selling less and less licenses due to hardware being able to do more. Why you'd think their costs are fixed makes no sense to me.

    In this business you pass the savings to customers - that is how it works or market makes you irrelevant 256 MB Vz VPS was $ 40/mo once upon a time - unmanaged

    if a provider of the providers refuse to make that they are stagnating their customers and smart ones will start to drop them - first partially (switch storage to ceph at first) which will increase down spiral

    1. I write that to get a bargain for the providers :)
    2. to help Onapp to avoid disaster in just couple of years

    All big biz cloud providers charge per CPU pair / Socket if the new secret price of Onapp is $6 per core the numbers are:

    32 Cores x $6 per core ×10 nodes × 12 months is $23040 for a year add $100 for the controller and calculate storage as free

    It is on par with Canonical Open Stack + Premium Support that includes OS support

    and 50% more expensive than Open Nebula + Premium Support that includes OS support too

    I do not think storage s is free with Onapp and I do not think that they include OS support

    So they are allready out priced for 32 cores market which lowest point is $189 / mo lease per node or less if you use remote storage solution (as you could buy 32 cores nodes from hetzner without storage $121 (with small flash too boot hypervisor OS )

    So Onapp is allready on cut off point for 32 cores with $6 per core for Open Stack + Premium support and if the price is $4.50 per core a bit over the price for Open Nebula + Premium Support

    And with both 2 when your team become trained enough you can cut premium support as Nick Mentioned there is not licensed fees

    Thanked by 1coolice

    www.onapp.com | www.cloud.net | www.cdn.net

  • What's the new currency then?

  • @coolice said:

    @TimboJones said:
    whoosh

    Please see business model from their point of view to be sustainable and not just because you expect it. You're being irrational because of your minimal business skills.

    Tl;dr you expect them to fix the price despite selling less and less licenses due to hardware being able to do more. Why you'd think their costs are fixed makes no sense to me.

    In this business you pass the savings to customers - that is how it works or market makes you irrelevant 256 MB Vz VPS was $ 40/mo once upon a time - unmanaged or you add free stuff to the offer too keep it relevant (buy 10 nodes get 15 etc)

    Why would that apply here? Those providers are spending the same amount and getting improvements others made and "passing on the savings" because they did fuck all and have no additional investment to recoup. Comparing to a service that has support and continually adding features makes no sense.

    All big biz cloud software providers charge per CPU pair / Socket if the new secret price of Onapp is $6 per core the numbers are:

    32 Cores x $6 per core ×10 nodes × 12 months is $23040 for a year add $100 for the controller and calculate storage as free

    It is on par with Canonical Open Stack + Premium Support that includes OS support

    and 50% more expensive than Open Nebula + Premium Support that includes OS support too

    I do not think storage s is free with Onapp and I do not think that they include OS support

    So Onapp is allready on cut off point for 32 cores with $6 per core for Open Stack + Premium support and if the price is $4.50 per core a bit over the price for Open Nebula + Premium Support

    Well, if you're only considering the paper price and not the total cost of development and included features, you're not making a valid comparison. It doesn't matter if $service is cheaper if it's hot garbage. Generally, the expensive shit got expensive because it made/saved money for someone else besides the seller. Adding a human developer with skills is a 6 figure cost, so solutions with least amount of people could win comparisons that cost more on price alone.

    Thanked by 1ditlev
  • @NickA said:
    What's the new currency then?

    OnAPPCoin.

    Thanked by 3ditlev NickA Tr33n
  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 18

    @TimboJones said:

    Why would that apply here? Those providers are spending the same amount and getting improvements others made and "passing on the savings" because they did fuck all and have no additional investment to recoup. Comparing to a service that has support and continually adding features makes no sense.

    Because no matter all bells and whistles that different software brings - for every client of the softwares - main business is to sell access to CPU, RAM, Space and main product the CPU for decades follows Moore's law... . Software just helps to sell it on a dedicated or fair share basis ... If you want to stay competitive the industry that followed the Мoore's law for so long you got to be able to constantly move forward...

    If a Software provider in some way prevents theirs customers to follow their product lines with Moore's law they are stagnating their customers and make then noncompetitive....

    If a software provider is unhappy how the things go with main product of their clients (Moore's law) they should go make software for some for some industry that do not have such product growth cycle (maybe accounting software or something else)

    Well, if you're only considering the paper price and not the total cost of development and included features, you're not making a valid comparison. It doesn't matter if $service is cheaper if it's hot garbage. Generally, the expensive shit got expensive because it made/saved money for someone else besides the seller. Adding a human developer with skills is a 6 figure cost, so solutions with least amount of people could win comparisons that cost more on price alone.

    In terms of spend for development OpenStack and Open Nebula (has a lot more spend than Onapp ) cause of the main clients that use them and invest in that ... we should never talk about quality as some of the bigger and more respected providers run OpenStack

    It is not big boys that positioned them to be the cheaper one - they are charging a lot per server node that do not make the calculation for providers with low core servers ... Onapp found their niche as the cheaper software to build a Cloud with cheap low cores server and this was ok for some time, but due to Moore's law an low core servers almost do not exist (we live in the time of cheap multi cores )... and this make them more expensive than big cloud software providers

    P.S The only things it was missing with Big was easy auto provision modules but now days it is integrated in billings like hostbill has pretty decent Openstack Module

    Thanked by 1ditlev

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • @coolice said:

    @TimboJones said:

    Why would that apply here? Those providers are spending the same amount and getting improvements others made and "passing on the savings" because they did fuck all and have no additional investment to recoup. Comparing to a service that has support and continually adding features makes no sense.

    Because no matter all bells and whistles that different software brings - for every client of the softwares - main business is to sell access to CPU, RAM, Space and main product the CPU for decades follows Moore's law... . Software just helps to sell it on a dedicated or fair share basis ... If you want to stay competitive the industry that followed the Мoore's law for so long you got to be able to constantly move forward...

    Are you a teenager or something? Partially about your inexperience, partially about the "..." , and partially how you don't understand hardware and software business.

    Moore's Law is about the doubling of transistors, nothing to do with price of CPU, RAM and storage space.

    These days, hardware is sold at low profit to sell software at high profit. It's been the gaming console business model for 40 years.

    Hardware has margins like 10%, software like 65%.

    Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, all software companies (Apple just found how to be profitable on hardware. Note the "designed in California", they don't MFG stuff, they have contractors do it). You might have heard the term "killer app" to describe an app that made a platform take off because it wasn't of interest before the killer app.

    If a Software provider in some way prevents theirs customers to follow their product lines with Moore's law they are stagnating their customers and make then noncompetitive....

    If their revenue stream decreases each year, what do you expect?

    If a software provider is unhappy how the things go with main product of their clients (Moore's law) they should go make software for some for some industry that do not have such product growth cycle (maybe accounting software or something else)

    What? The company simply expects more money when more work is done. This is pretty fair. You're being irrational and/or cheap. You talk about Moore's Law, but what's the relevance when you're using ancient hardware and not following Moore's Law to 16, 32, 64 cores? You're not running server grade stuff, half of us had more powerful desktops 10 years ago.

    Well, if you're only considering the paper price and not the total cost of development and included features, you're not making a valid comparison. It doesn't matter if $service is cheaper if it's hot garbage. Generally, the expensive shit got expensive because it made/saved money for someone else besides the seller. Adding a human developer with skills is a 6 figure cost, so solutions with least amount of people could win comparisons that cost more on price alone.

    In terms of spend for development OpenStack and Open Nebula (has a lot more spend than Onapp ) cause of the main clients that use them and invest in that ... we should never talk about quality as some of the bigger and more respected providers run OpenStack

    It is not big boys that positioned them to be the cheaper one - they are charging a lot per server node that do not make the calculation for providers with low core servers ... Onapp found their niche as the cheaper software to build a Cloud with cheap low cores server and this was ok for some time, but due to Moore's law an low core servers almost do not exist (we live in the time of cheap multi cores )... and this make them more expensive than big cloud software providers

    They may have realized you guys and your small cores and 8 year old hardware isn't enough to run a business on. They'd rather sell to companies that do serious business and growing.

    P.S The only things it was missing with Big was easy auto provision modules but now days it is integrated in billings like hostbill has pretty decent Openstack Module

  • coolicecoolice Member
    edited February 19

    @TimboJones said:

    Are you a teenager or something? Partially about your inexperience, partially about the "..." , and partially how you don't understand hardware and software business.

    Moore's Law is about the doubling of transistors, nothing to do with price of CPU, RAM and storage space.

    These days, hardware is sold at low profit to sell software at high profit. It's been the gaming console business model for 40 years.

    Hardware has margins like 10%, software like 65%.

    Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, all software companies (Apple just found how to be profitable on hardware. Note the "designed in California", they don't MFG stuff, they have contractors do it). You might have heard the term "killer app" to describe an app that made a platform take off because it wasn't of interest before the killer app.

    Moore's Law can be interpreted broadly as doubling CPU power ... no matter if it is single circuit or glued cpu cores :wink: (I like the glued ones - Intel at first make fun of AMD gluing x4 cores together with the infinity fabric but now days they do the same)

    For others Industries ok about software they can profit as much as they can/ want.... in our industry software exist with one single purpose to help us sell access to the hardware to our customers....

    If they care more about revenue stream than to help us to be as efficient as possible and keep up with market they just choose the wrong industry...

    What? The company simply expects more money when more work is done. This is pretty fair. You're being irrational and/or cheap. You talk about Moore's Law, but what's the relevance when you're using ancient hardware and not following Moore's Law to 16, 32, 64 cores? You're not running server grade stuff, half of us had more powerful desktops 10 years ago.

    I do not believe a software company selling advance virtualization software is doing more work on their side when they sell exact same license to 32 cores EPYC then when License is used on 4 cores E3 ...

    They may have realized you guys and your small cores and 8 year old hardware isn't enough to run a business on. They'd rather sell to companies that do serious business and growing.

    I mentioned before if a company doing "serious business and growing" is paying 180% of hardware price for software that helps them sell access to the hardware

    And the completion choose to go open source (Opne Stack as big boys) or something cheaper they can literally offer 3 times more hardware resources with the same expenses at the same price for the end customer as you with same level of node density which will make you noncompetitive

    Onapp can literally sense when a client of them is preparing to jump ship (maybe not immediately but on next hardware rotation) when they stop to use their storage even if it is now free if a client switch storage that is the first more important step as the new storage if it is supported can be attached other cloud setups and they just got to import VM configs to the new system and shutdown and reboot VMs there

    P.S My cloud setup how I mentioned in the beginning is designed with addition of fail over with exactly the purpose to jump (5 min process) to new hardware without reinstalling shared hosting VMs which i plan to do 5 times in this decade so I'll keep moving forward out competing companies that pay licenses per core

    Future-Proof Yourself! Buy! Buy!

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Provider

    @TimboJones said: OnAPPCoin.

    Francisco

    BuyVM - Free DirectAdmin, Softaculous, & Blesta! / Anycast Support! / Windows 2008, 2012, & 2016! / Unmetered Bandwidth!
    BuyShared - Shared & Reseller Hosting / cPanel + Softaculous + CloudLinux / Pure SSD! / Free Dedicated IP Address
Sign In or Register to comment.