Howdy, Stranger!

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


Should LET price rules be adjusted to match LEB? - Page 2
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.

Should LET price rules be adjusted to match LEB?

2»

Comments

  • OpticalSwoosh said: So where was the choice for the LEB decision. Not having a go but doesn't seem right

    And let's face it, none of us really give a fuck about LEB these days, which is why it's in the state it is.

    Thanked by 2Pwner vimalware
  • yomeroyomero Member
    edited September 2016

    The only issue that I see having LEB offers at <= $10, is the people coming here, not reading and posting >$7 offers.

    Also, having $10 offers here, probably will open the place to very overselled plans of... 8GB RAM or so.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • What I fear about this, is the offer that was $7 before, would now become $10 for same resource. So at the end, the customer get ripped off.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • FredQc said: What I fear about this, is the offer that was $7 before, would now become $10 for same resource. So at the end, the customer get ripped off.

    That surely only happens if you allow it to?

  • @Nekki said:

    FredQc said: What I fear about this, is the offer that was $7 before, would now become $10 for same resource. So at the end, the customer get ripped off.

    That surely only happens if you allow it to?

    Yes! I should have put some "if" in that sentence. Sorry for the confusion ;)

  • SplitIceSplitIce Member, Host Rep

    I like the format of that post, and the distinction between more categories.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • No, but if you really want to, add a managed offers category for fully managed offers

    Thanked by 1jar
  • IMO, offers should be allowed to post multiple plans as long as the cheapest plan is not higher than $7/month, and the most expensive plan in the offer post is not higher than $10/month. E.g. DO can post in the offer thread listing 2 products: 512MB for $5/mo and 1GB for $10/mo

    This would save me a bit of trouble PMing the provider to ask if they have a higher plan available.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • Yes, def match the new LEB rules! I'd love to see what providers are willing to do for a few extra dollars.

    If they do just re-price their $7 plans to $10 it will be pretty obvious and the provider risks getting RAKED OVER THE COALS.

    Thanked by 4jar FredQc Francisco GCat
  • rm_rm_ IPv6 Advocate, Veteran

    jarland said: Should we change LET to match?

    No.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • jiggawattjiggawatt Member
    edited September 2016

    jarland said: Should we change LET to match?

    Not to match - but the ceiling should be changed to $0.007/hr

    Thanked by 2jar GCat
  • I vote No

    Thanked by 1jar
  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider
    edited September 2016

    FredQc said: What I fear about this, is the offer that was $7 before, would now become $10 for same resource. So at the end, the customer get ripped off.

    If that happens, you should start asking yourself some hard questions. Was it ever sustainable at the $7 that was offered? If yes, and the provider increases the prices just because they can, are they not just out for money? Would you prefer to host with a provider like that, or with a provider where the owner(s) just want to provide a good and sustainable service?

    Realistically, the bargain bin offers usually aren't sustainable, and it's not doing the the customers any good. There's mountains of crap in the VPS hosting industry right now, and that's largely because people are looking for the absolute-most-resources-per-dollar.

    Compare this to LEB/LET a number of years ago, where the active providers were by and large small providers that intended to make a reasonable living off it, provide as good a service as they could, and just generally contribute to the community.

    While I've voted "no" in this poll because I don't think more offers is a good idea here at all, I think your fear of providers raising prices says more about the providers you choose to use, than about anything else. I would expect the Reasonable Providers(tm) here to simply stick with the pricing they have, because it is already sustainable at that level.

    Chances are that the only ones raising prices in response to an increase in the offer cap, are hosts that you really wouldn't want to be hosting with in the first place, because they apparently care more about price and/or customer base size, than about providing you with a good service.

    </rant>

    Thanked by 4jar FredQc mycosys GCat
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited September 2016

    Seems a fairly strong case for "people don't want this" is building. I'm totally okay with that. I still stand by the notion that as overhead has decreased in the market, the price limit should technically be lower to maintain the same purpose. However, the purpose itself is of less interest these days because lower offers are easily found in all categories.

    I've no issue with merely pressing on and focusing on community, leaving the offer side as-is.

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    jarland said: I still stand by the notion that as overhead has decreased in the market, the price limit should technically be lower to maintain the same purpose.

    While I agree with that in principle (and I think it would improve the quality of the offers, at least in the short term), there is the problem of increasing IPv4 prices.

    Thanked by 2jar GCat
  • No.

    Thanked by 2FredQc yomero
  • souensouen Member
    edited September 2016

    Thanks for the poll. With the recent discussion about revitalising LEB and suggestions people made about better integration between LEB and LET, I would have liked to see the policies for both closely aligned if not the same.

    However, I agree with the comments noting there's not enough data yet to see whether the price change has had a net positive effect. I'm not sure the change is helpful for customers with a LE* focus, though if the site is moving from specialising in LE* and expanding to other audiences, it would make that criteria irrelevant. This from the perspective of a customer, which may be different from a provider perspective, and both are part of the community. Additionally, since there was no poll about the LEB price change, I guess LET could also be considered a standalone site for now or distinct enough from LEB, with a different decision-making process and rules.

    tl;dr: no.

  • I think providers who have proved themselves should be allowed to post offers higher then $7 but they need to have good rep from trusted buyers (meaning that people with low quality posts should not be accepted.

  • Yes. Some location like Malaysia, indonesia, vietname...these countries still having high bandwidth cost, they are totally not affordable to offer the price as per listed in LET. Its not fair to them have a chance to offer this to any potential client.

  • Yes.

  • No, for more fierce competition price should go down.

  • no

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    This is so clearly a no. That's cool. Let's call it. The graph isn't going to change. Right now 67% of 85 responses said no. Moving on :)

    Thanked by 2Amitz GCat
  • No

  • Well,
    Anything that encourages more quality providers should be a "YES". Perhaps a limited time trial can reveal results?

    I don't mind paying a bit more (not exhaustive) if the services are reliable and steady network'd

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    @mehargags said:
    Well,
    Anything that encourages more quality providers should be a "YES". Perhaps a limited time trial can reveal results?

    I don't mind paying a bit more (not exhaustive) if the services are reliable and steady network'd

    I don't think it would, though. The only scenario in which "higher limit" translates to "better deals" is when you're looking for most-resources-per-dollar, because resources get cheaper per unit if you buy more of them (for a number of reasons).

    A provider that prioritizes service quality over resources-per-dollar would just lower the resources on their plans to make it sustainable at $7.

  • How about lowering prices? If you need/want some congruity with LEB, I'd say go down to half their price. Or, put another way, target each to different segments of the market: LEB for beginners who will pay a bit more to get a little extra hand holding, and LET for people who know what they're doing.

    Besides, computing continues to be a deflationary market. If things like IPv4 costs are bucking that trend, the solution isn't to prop up the providers who unable or unwilling to support IPv6-centric offers. It's just going to get worse on that front (until the bottom drops out), meaning constant price increases if you don't factor out that cost from offers.

    Thanked by 1jar
Sign In or Register to comment.