3 ms·

I'd be very interested in their take on this. This is totally unlike John and I'd hope someone on his team would intervene if he were to act in such a manner.

I'd be very interested in their take on this. This is totally unlike John and I'd hope someone on his team would intervene if he were to act in such a manner. But I'm still surprised that someone signs up for a specific plan, exceeds the plan's limitations, gets 7 days off warning, and is then openly complaining about that practice, as if it were the first time a company ever had that business model. You don't sign up for AWS and then don't get to create resources unless you top up your account first. Of course Ghost could add such a feature, but how many of their customers are asking for it? From the looks of it, not many. It's also funny how he was ready to spend hundreds of dollars on his project, but the people who host it, maintain it and make sure it's highly available don't deserve more of his money, despite him exceeding the maximum amount of users of the plan he chose. Instead, he complains about a totally fair warning of 7 days before he even gets charged more. "What if I didn't read my email in 7 days" is like saying that you don't open your physical mailbox regularly and you don't deserve to get a warning for a due invoice. If you do business online, read your mail. I'm curious how John or Ghost will react. I'm sure there's more to this story.

Mandatum 6y ago
The pricing doesn't scale linearly, this is an upgrade because he exceeded single metric (staff users). If it scaled linearly, it would have gone from $29 to $43.50 - not $99. This practice is a dark pattern. There isn't a single mainstream service out there that pulls this type of shit without catching flak for it - the likes of AT&T, etc. This is a poorly implemented feature where they claim to "Only pay for what you actually use, never worry about traffic spikes"[0] .. but you have to read into each plan to see the other metrics this applies to. Works great for users who over-subscribe but terribly for those who don't. Ghost should be doing this manually for users who don't exceed their bandwidth caps - there's no charge for them, and they're just going to be eating any good will they had from the community (which up until recently was pretty good). Just bar access to additional staff accounts. They're being called out for poor tiering and upgrade practices, the 7 day notice is laughable when they even talk about 3 month rolling averages in the front. [0]https://ghost.org/pricing/ https://ghost.org/pricing/

Mandatum 6y ago

The pricing doesn't scale linearly, this is an upgrade because he exceeded single metric (staff users). If it scaled linearly, it would have gone from $29 to $43.50 - not $99. This practice is a dark pattern. There isn't a single mainstream service out there that pulls this type of shit without catching flak for it - the likes of AT&T, etc. This is a poorly implemented feature where they claim to "Only pay for what you actually use, never worry about traffic spikes"[0] .. but you have to read into each plan to see the other metrics this applies to. Works great for users who over-subscribe but terribly for those who don't. Ghost should be doing this manually for users who don't exceed their bandwidth caps - there's no charge for them, and they're just going to be eating any good will they had from the community (which up until recently was pretty good). Just bar access to additional staff accounts. They're being called out for poor tiering and upgrade practices, the 7 day notice is laughable when they even talk about 3 month rolling averages in the front. [0]https://ghost.org/pricing/ https://ghost.org/pricing/