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.
New WHMCS alternative? nukern.com
It seems a new WHMCS alternative may be in the process of getting developed, https://www.nukern.com/
It seems quite promising though I haven't tested it.
Anyone has any thoughts on this?
Comments
Hosting companies and SaaS Billing won't go well.
SaaS in billing/support is a huge turn off
Their one minute explanation video looks way much to a commercial or a kickstarter project. The guy on the video also mentions he spent all his time invoicing, which WHMCS - the one they compare to - does automatically. I'd call it bullshit.
Just curious, why do you think SaaS billing won't work in that scenario?
"Set your web hosting business on autopilot with Nukern"
Well, I got excited there for a second, however the complete lack of anything but high level descriptions on the features is a HUGE turn off .... 'automation' well... great, I was hoping to buy a dog and bark myself.
Nobody wants to host the core part of business with somebody managing the servers.
What's the point of limiting customers from being able to installing the software on their own servers? I mean most SaaS models exist for simplicity but a core business application that includes sensitive data doesn't need to have a 'simple' installation.
Recurring income
$10/mo. for 25 users and then $0.4 for every client!
As someone that had a hosting company for multiple years, I find it quite useful to have a third-party company that can guarantee data security as well as take care of updates.
Disclaimer: I am Lead Devops at Nukern.
Hello everyone, and thanks for the nudge @zafouhar.
I can see why someone wouldn't want to transition to a SaaS model. That being said, Nukern is not for everyone, but we're taking all the necessary steps to guarantee the security of our clients - just like other billing SaaS.
I have to agree with @AnthonySmith about the fact that our
websitelanding page needs more in-depth information. We're working on a full-featured website, but it won't be out before we're out of beta.In the meantime, if you have questions, feel free to jump on our website for a live chat with one of our team members. We'd be more than happy to answer your questions and address any concerns you may have.
As for our pricing plans, @mailcheap is right, but I'd like to add a little to it;
Our plans start at $10/month and allow you to have up to 25 active clients at any time during that month. Then, any extra active client is $0.40 per month or less, depending on your client volume.
Thanks for having me. Until next time... cheers!
I absolutely hate the whole pay per client model
Agreed. Pay per client is stupid.
WHMCS - $15.95/month, unlimited clients
Nukern - $10/month, 25 clients and costs the most when you hit 40 clients
If I wanted to start my own web hosting business - I definitely wouldn't choose a pay per client model, since I'd rather have control of my payments, etc.
A better model would be like shopify, a base monthly fee of like $10, then a fee on transactions, like 2.5%
If you are willing to handle the transactions for me go ahead.
Fixed.
We are working on an integration with both MaxMind and SiftScience to automate fraud detection. Jumio's NetVerify is also on our roadmap. Disreputable customers won't be an issue once it's all in place.
Yeah... that has to go.
Personally id like to see two models. One being the ability to host your own panel much like WHMCS and the second is your SaaS model for a higher monthly rate.
The whole taking $0.40cents per customer isin't going to pick up traction IMO especially when many hosting companies already run on incredibly slim margins as is.
No worries, seems I had signed up to receive your newsletters at some stage
Before trying to earn more than WHMCS, you may > @Nukern said:
Can you share a few more details?
And are you aware of Virtkick? and their first pricing model.
>
Hey @paulof, of course I can share more. What would you like to know?
Even though we're not targeting the exact same niche, we've been following Virtkick ever since they started. I had the chance to have a drink with their CEO in San Antonio a couple months back.
Virtkick's model was a % on each transaction made through them or something similar, is that correct? They moved away from the transactional fees and replaced them with per Hypervisor plans, which makes sense IMO.
We've been looking at many different ways of pricing our plans... The one that was almost unanimously well received by all beta users is the "per client per month" model. We're super open to suggestions and love to get feedback. But for the moment, we're going with this model as we were able to validate it with actual users.
Thanks for the comparison @FlamesRunner. To be fair, WHMCS is $18.95 with no branding + a VPS monthly price to host the software + time to install, configure, patch, etc.
As for Nukern, you don't need to spend time installing/updating/patching your billing software, it's all automated and seamless. Our client portal is white-label. Our new infrastructure has DDoS protection on our API and a worldwide CDN. We're also working on our PCI compliance. If you were to get the same setup, you'd have a nice bill every month for WHMCS. But starting at $10/month, you get all of the above.
One last thing to address; you do keep control over all of your payments with Nukern. You simply connect your PayPal, Stripe or Braintree account through one of our modules. That's it!
By the way (and that goes to everyone), I'm always up for a chat, so feel free to hit me up
Thanks again for having me, cheers!
I would rather pay WHMCS then pay you per month for something that is out of my control and furthermore costs way more than what WHMCS offers sorry but if I had to pay per client you just went "deadpool" in my eyes like virtkick did when they decided I had to pay for my own vm's I use on my hypervisor that is way way way too much compared to what I told them I could put solusvm on my hypervisors instead and come out way cheaper then that as I can get solusvm cheaper than that; the same applies to you which I told you before if you aren't willing to cater to both crowds: "hosting" and "developers" which your competition already offers because WHMCS & Blesta already did make their "hosting" modules plus made the "licensing" modules to cater to both crowds you don't have a chance plus with you not having it on servers you control and this "per client" nonsense licensing you won't have a chance either with that either.
by the way you really need to learn people don't want other third parties having their "core" system aka billing in a third party's hands with their data
which this gif says perfectly:
no
H to the E to the L to the L - all the way to the muthafuckin NO!
Now that I have some time, I figured it'd make sense to expand and offer some explanation to the incredibly insightful statement above -
A WHMCS license costs about $9-$15/month. It is tried and tested, with a decent set of in-built functions, regular updates / bug fixes and availability of plenty of useful third party extensions that YOU can host on your own and have COMPLETE control over its data.
If that weren't enough, it is rather straight forward to extend / modify as well, and allows the license holder to manage unlimited number of clients with little difficulty.
So, why would a web host or an individual with even a little bit of know-how and experience choose to move from a relatively open and flexible 'ecosystem' to a more restrictive and expensive one, while handing over total control of crucial client and business data over to an unaudited third party ?
Good choice. SiftScience is amazing.
I actually never heard of SiftScience until this came up can't see any whmcs support but as the others have said the pay per client model is horrible and you are competiting directly against whmcs. Plus that company name doesn't give me the world of confidence.
I have not read the info about the service but I think they will have a better client base if they at least certify their code through one or two security code-audit agencies.