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? - 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.

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

24

Comments

  • Rebrand to HighValueTalk

  • uptimeuptime Member

    HighEndLulz

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Btw, what I'd find even more important is to have providers tell what a vCore is. Is it 1/4 of a hw core? Or of a thread? Or 1/4? And on what processor?

    Those VPS might cost almost the same but a vCore that is but 1/4 of 1 HT thread of a 26xx v2 is sh_tty compared to another vCore that is 1/2 hw core of a decent processor.

  • YuraYura Member

    I agree with @jsg. The push from providers to up the prices is understandable and the premise could be to "offer higher value" but let's deal with lower hanging fruits first!

    If the goal to have any offer rules in this community is to have better, more reliable and worthwhile offers then let's make specs more clear.

    "Core" is too muddy.

    Bandwidth? What's your upstream.

    Not like it's the first time we did it. Remember the pushback when providers listed RAM as OVZ ram + swap lol.

    Thanked by 1Erik2
  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 2019

    @Lee said:
    Why have a limit at all?

    Agreed.

    If it is to expensive it will self regulate.

    This site is just the empty rotten husk after ColoCrossing bastardized it, they have preyed on people effectively because of the price limit that 'genuine' hosts are restricted by.

    Remove it, let it self regulate.

    Its also pretty significant as when I brought this up a year ago it was a STRONG no from the vast majority, seems to be the other way now.

    Thanked by 3Lee lovelyserver lazyt
  • YuraYura Member

    @AnthonySmith said:
    Its also pretty significant as when I brought this up a year ago it was a STRONG no from the vast majority, seems to be the other way now.

    Just like Brexit. Let's have voting on limits until it's "yes". Brilliant idea.

    'genuine' hosts are restricted by.

    Um, genuine hosts like Hetzner, Kimsufi/OVH, QuickPacket are quite welcome and successful in the market segment this place is meant for. I will even say that they do know how to also sell to other segments. If I need a full managed server or 20 cloud instances I go to places that specialize in that, not turning lowendtalk into everythingundersuntalk

    Thanked by 1default
  • LeeLee Veteran

    AnthonySmith said: Its also pretty significant as when I brought this up a year ago it was a STRONG no from the vast majority, seems to be the other way now.

    Indeed, that is what I thought of when I saw this thread. Surprised it has swung so much in the other direction. But maybe not. Look at the last few pages of threads, that tells you what LET is now, offers and complaints (more than it has ever been). Very little of anything else.

    The membership on LET has changed, it is mainly people looking for deals or to complain, there are very little other discussions outwith that.

    So as you say, self-regulation. People are not going to buy unless its a good deal (by LET standards). No need to restrict what members should or should not see.

    As I have been saying for the last few years, LET as it was, is no longer. Stop fighting it and let it become what it is.

  • angstromangstrom Moderator
    edited June 2019

    @Lee said:

    AnthonySmith said: Its also pretty significant as when I brought this up a year ago it was a STRONG no from the vast majority, seems to be the other way now.

    Indeed, that is what I thought of when I saw this thread. Surprised it has swung so much in the other direction. But maybe not. Look at the last few pages of threads, that tells you what LET is now, offers and complaints (more than it has ever been). Very little of anything else.

    The membership on LET has changed, it is mainly people looking for deals or to complain, there are very little other discussions outwith that.

    So as you say, self-regulation. People are not going to buy unless its a good deal (by LET standards). No need to restrict what members should or should not see.

    As I have been saying for the last few years, LET as it was, is no longer. Stop fighting it and let it become what it is.

    You and Ant seem to have given up on LET, perhaps understandably.

    I guess that the extreme of self-regulation would be to get rid of the mods as well, but we all know where this would lead ...

    I think that having price limits reflects well the mission/spirit of LET, and it would be a shame to completely abandon this mission/spirit.

    I just think that the $7 rule stems from a past era, which doesn't allow for powerful ("hybrid") VPSes.

    But I'm also against introducing too much regulation because this ultimately makes (much) more work for the mods.

    Thanked by 1Yura
  • pikepike Veteran

    The argument about comparing the dedi and VPS price rules is valid.
    I would like to have a hard limit for dedis offered here like 39$/m or even less.

  • angstromangstrom Moderator
    edited June 2019

    One could keep the $7 rule for ordinary VPSes and introduce a $14 (or $21) rule for VPSes that allow for nested virtualization.

    Thanked by 2uptime cybertech
  • cybertechcybertech Member
    edited June 2019

    @angstrom said:
    One could keep the $7 rule for ordinary VPSes and introduce a $14 (or $21) rule for VPSes that allow for nested virtualization.

    yeah sumthin like that.

    perhaps say $?/GB ram up to $7, and then lower $/GB ram up to a mid tier amount for obese VPS/VDS (think php-friends)

    so some providers instead of making the plans stackable, could give even more for a higher tier plan

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • angstromangstrom Moderator
    edited June 2019

    @cybertech said:

    @angstrom said:
    One could keep the $7 rule for ordinary VPSes and introduce a $14 (or $21) rule for VPSes that allow for nested virtualization.

    yeah sumthin like that.

    perhaps say $?/GB ram up to $7, and then lower $/GB ram up to a mid tier amount for VPS/VDS

    Yeah, I understand, but I would find conditions such as those already too detailed ... and we wouldn't want to leave out CPU ... the (non)application of any rule should be very simple to diagnose.

    Thanked by 2cybertech vimalware
  • @angstrom said:

    @cybertech said:

    @angstrom said:
    One could keep the $7 rule for ordinary VPSes and introduce a $14 (or $21) rule for VPSes that allow for nested virtualization.

    yeah sumthin like that.

    perhaps say $?/GB ram up to $7, and then lower $/GB ram up to a mid tier amount for VPS/VDS

    Yeah, I understand, but I would find conditions such as those already too detailed ... and we wouldn't want to leave out CPU ...

    true about cpu mate. that i leave to precisionists to decide.

    Thanked by 1angstrom
  • LeeLee Veteran
    edited June 2019

    angstrom said: You and Ant seem to have given up on LET, perhaps understandably.

    As have the majority of members over the years who made LET a more useful place to visit, they have mostly gone because of the way LET has turned out.

    Have I given up on LET? To a degree. LIke I say check, the last few pages of threads, It's dead already other than offers, complaints and drama.

    So many of us have tried to improve LET to stop it becoming what it has, but it was met by resistance all the way. The shit posting in threads these days makes them unreadable.

    angstrom said: I guess that the extreme of self-regulation would be to get rid of the mods as well, but we all know where this would lead ...

    Nobody mentioned that, no need to try and create a false narrative.

  • For VPS, no.. For Dedicated servers. Yes I want to see more "expensive" offers with great value.

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    @angstrom said:

    @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.)

    I know, but that limit change doesn't conflict with ColoCrossing's business model. It just allows them to charge more.

  • I voted no because the intro combined with the poll question is implying that it is a vote for price increase rather than reviewed.

    Yes for The idea of having a new higher price limit for a minimum set of specs, like a minimum of 4 cores, 8 GB RAM 3TB kvm or whatever can go up to 9$ or 10.. Numbers might or might not be realistic, just to get the idea through.

    LET to me has been a God's send when I first got into this, un-knowledgeable users come here to know if a price is reasonable or not among many other things of course

    LET protect it's niche sort of speak.

    Thanked by 2plumberg Erik2
  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @Lee said: angstrom said: I guess that the extreme of self-regulation would be to get rid of the mods as well, but we all know where this would lead ...

    Nobody mentioned that, no need to try and create a false narrative.

    I mentioned it! No false narrative! It was just a thought experiment about self-regulation in the extreme ...

    In any case, one thing that has made LET interesting is that there are price limits. If we do away with price limits, I (and I suspect others) would find LET less interesting (even if there are already other reasons to find LET less interesting in 2019 than in (say) 2016).

  • angstromangstrom Moderator
    edited June 2019

    @joepie91 said:

    @angstrom said:

    @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.)

    I know, but that limit change doesn't conflict with ColoCrossing's business model. It just allows them to charge more.

    Okay, I see what you mean.

    Although I don't place a lot of trust in CC, I suspect that they're not inclined to interfere at this level: namely, they wouldn't try to override or block a change in price limits on LET. (But perhaps I'm naive.)

  • AC_FanAC_Fan Member

    Just increase the limit to 10 USD for VPSes, and drop the "no setup fee" and such type rules on the dedis.
    Also, as somebody already said, an upvote/downvote would be a perfect tool to manage the offers.

  • LeeLee Veteran
    edited June 2019

    angstrom said: It was just a thought experiment about self-regulation in the extreme

    So all that I suggested is that no price limit is required. People are capable of self-regulating, it's their money, their choice. Not really sure why removing moderators relates to this. Unless you are suggesting I can't be trusted to make my own choices and that is why a limit is needed. But I digress.

    angstrom said: I think that having price limits reflects well the mission/spirit of LET, and it would be a shame to completely abandon this mission/spirit.

    Lowend was a reference to the VPS itself, never the price. LEA set the limit at $7 as over that price you were able to get more resources than a 'lowendbox' required to function. Hence the limit was set and he only posted offers under that amount, to avoid higher than needed resources.

    Thanked by 1MikePT
  • @joepie91 said:

    @angstrom said:

    @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.)

    I know, but that limit change doesn't conflict with ColoCrossing's business model. It just allows them to charge more.

    Disclaimer (like the software companies :) ): not an expert so take all written with a grain of salt.

    But it also allows good quality offers that cost more than 7$ to be included.

    Including tiers and price limits based on VPS tier level seems very sensible.
    And it adds that World Of Tanks cool factor! BOOM! :)

    Though destroyer, cruiser and battleship sound even more cool than tier 1, 2... :)

  • WeblogicsWeblogics Member
    edited June 2019

    Yes, I would like to see it increased to at least $10.00. An idea: Some of the providers post some theoretical / example ONLY $10.00 offers in this thread. be interested to see what a $10.00 VPS would spec out to.

  • MikePTMikePT Moderator, Patron Provider, Veteran

    @Lee said:

    angstrom said: It was just a thought experiment about self-regulation in the extreme

    So all that I suggested is that no price limit is required. People are capable of self-regulating, it's their money, their choice. Not really sure why removing moderators relates to this. Unless you are suggesting I can't be trusted to make my own choices and that is why a limit is needed. But I digress.

    angstrom said: I think that having price limits reflects well the mission/spirit of LET, and it would be a shame to completely abandon this mission/spirit.

    Lowend was a reference to the VPS itself, never the price. LEA set the limit at $7 as over that price you were able to get more resources than a 'lowendbox' required to function. Hence the limit was set and he only posted offers under that amount, to avoid higher than needed resources.

    Agreed! There shouldnt be any limit at all. Market regulates itself.

  • There is no reason why there cannot be a 7 dollars lowend category and above 7 dollars highend category. Just make sure offers are properly labelled. I just need a way to quickly distinguish between the two in the title of the offer.

  • Is the question about raising the maximum pricing only? How should I vote if I want the current max lowered?

    Thanked by 1Adam1
  • @blkbirdotm said:
    Is the question about raising the maximum pricing only? How should I vote if I want the current max lowered?

    Presumably in the next thread opened after the community has decided that $7 has to be changed.

  • @AnthonySmith said:

    Remove it, let it self regulate.

    Why do we have shitty offers sometimes? Because they must fit in a price, limit.

    I prefer to pay 10-12 / monthly for a good KVM, stable, reliable, instead of 5 USD / m which will collapse every day, paying for an unusable service.

    Thanked by 1dahartigan
  • agree, actually remove the limit. there's so many factors that can affect why providers can't provide $5 VPS, location, DDOS protection, in-house support staff. etc. the only providers who can actually earn decent amount with our limits is AR, the ColoGuys etc. And other providers who are rich enough to not care about income and only do this stuff to be able to post here in LEB.

  • @MikePT said:

    @Lee said:

    angstrom said: It was just a thought experiment about self-regulation in the extreme

    So all that I suggested is that no price limit is required. People are capable of self-regulating, it's their money, their choice. Not really sure why removing moderators relates to this. Unless you are suggesting I can't be trusted to make my own choices and that is why a limit is needed. But I digress.

    angstrom said: I think that having price limits reflects well the mission/spirit of LET, and it would be a shame to completely abandon this mission/spirit.

    Lowend was a reference to the VPS itself, never the price. LEA set the limit at $7 as over that price you were able to get more resources than a 'lowendbox' required to function. Hence the limit was set and he only posted offers under that amount, to avoid higher than needed resources.

    Agreed! There shouldnt be any limit at all. Market regulates itself.

    Generally speaking: market can regulate itself, just not sure many would like the way that works. Market left unchecked inevitably leads to one company having a monopoly in a relatively short time. Then being able to offer poor quality products/services at relatively high prices.

    I don't think this needs any further discussion - just like printing money unchecked inevitably leads to inflation, it's Economics 101.

    Thanked by 4MikePT Yura lazyt Erik2
This discussion has been closed.