10 ms·

With the lifetime account fiasco still ongoing [1], they should probably shut up. [1] Joyent/Textdrive sold lifetime shared hosting accounts for a one time pay

With the lifetime account fiasco still ongoing [1], they should probably shut up. [1] Joyent/Textdrive sold lifetime shared hosting accounts for a one time payment in the beginning. Those accounts would exist "as long as we exists". A couple of months back they sent an email that they are "discontinuing" lifetime accounts. After uproar from the community they offered refunds. Many people (including me) agreed to the refund, but then they decided to make another 180 degree turn, not paying out the refund. Instead they are now spinning off a new "Textdrive" that is supposed to "take over" the lifetime customers. No details about funding/general outlook/etc. of this new company has been provided so far. Questions to this end are shrugged off as "everything is perfect, just trust us, ..." Incidentally, the new Textdrive Forum (discuss.textdrive.com) seems to be down at the moment...

brador 14y ago
Why not sue them?
- mcherm 14y ago
  Because that is a very poor solution to most problems in the world.
  - statictype 14y ago
    As much as I hate to admit it, the threat of a lawsuit seems to be helpful in keeping many people and corporations in line.
    - brador 14y ago
      Most people tend a very negative view towards suing. Personally, when you're in the right and have a strong case, as the above seems to have, it works beautifully. I've had the written threat to sue work, as well as the actual suing. It's not as expensive, or time consuming, as you think and is the primary method of contract enforcement. It's also kinda fun and an interesting intellectual experience.
- anonymouz 14y ago
  As far as I understand one would have to sue in small claims court in California to get anything out of it. Since I'm in Europe, it unfortunately is not a cost-effective option. (I think I paid ~500$ for the original plan, so it's cheaper to write it off)
  - drivingmenuts 14y ago
    > so it's cheaper to write it off That's what they're counting on.
    - anonymouz 14y ago
      Probably. Unfortunately it's still true: I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars and lots of my time to sue them in California.
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
"lifetime" "unlimited" "forever" etc products should always been looked at sceptically for that reason. Anything that is either finite or requires up-keep cannot be offered on these terms, it is just impossible. I actually avoid unlimited products on purpose because I think a lie is a bad way to start doing business together. Be it web-hosting, broadband, or anything else. I would prefer they just be up front and then we both know where we stand (no ambiguity).
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  If the upkeep is smaller than the cost of capital to the company, such an arrangement probably remains mutually beneficial. Given that the cost of computing resources was falling enormously and continues doing so, I can see why TextDrive expected this arrangement to be profitable for them. Note that pensions and annuities, arrangements with terms best described as "pay $X/month for as long as I live", exist. (Of course, they pivoted out of the hosting business and found that supporting a one-off machine is an expensive headache. But it's not impossible for such an arrangement to work.)
- khet 14y ago
  If as a business you decide to offer a lifetime plan, it is assumed that you have accounted for the up-keep of the service. Joyent should be held responsible for not holding up their end of the deal.
- irahul 14y ago
  > "lifetime" "unlimited" "forever" etc products should always been looked at sceptically for that reason. Anything that is either finite or requires up-keep cannot be offered on these terms, it is just impossible. When a company is offering "lifetime", "unlimited", "forever" et al, the most likely reason is it is cash strapped and is hoping to raise some cash with these lucrative schemes. I, as a customer, am well aware about "no free lunches" but we are entering an agreement when I buy your supposedly "lifetime" plan. When you do an 180 later because the initial money you got from me isn't enough to keep me running forever, it isn't something unplanned that happened to you. You always knew that. It's just that you are hell bent on screwing me.
xentronium 14y ago
Red herring. Besides, as far as I understand, Textdrive is in the process of being relaunched, honoring all the lifetime plans.
- irahul 14y ago
  > Red herring. Here is a company with a history of making tall claims and then doing an 180. How is pointing that out a red herring? > Besides, as far as I understand, Textdrive is in the process of being relaunched, honoring all the lifetime plans. From what I know of the story, if they do honor lifetime plans, it isn't out of the goodness of their hearts. They had every intention of flipping the lifetime planholders, and they did, and what they are doing now is damage control.
  - xentronium 14y ago
    > Here is a company with a history of making tall claims and then doing an 180. How is pointing that out a red herring? That isn't particularly relevant to service quality and stability, is it? Maybe it's just me, but I try not to pay much attention to PR bullshit, since they have to make bold claims in order to succeed. p.s. that their blog was down for the last three hours is somewhat ironic, though.
    - josephlord 14y ago
      Whether you fundamentally trust your provider to try to do what they agreed 'isn't particularly relevant to service quality and stability'? Did you really mean that?
      - xentronium 14y ago
        The whole lifetime plan debacle was a really big blunder from PR standpoint, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a rip-off. Deal that started in 2004-2006 and lasted through to 2012 is 6 to 8 years worth of hosting. As far as I understand, they also offer one more year of free hosting as a compensation, which makes it 7 to 9 years. 7 to 9 years of hosting for $500 is okay in my books. Of course, that doesn't make their PR blunder look any better, they should've just swallowed the costs, but I don't 'fundamentally distrust' them based solely on this case.

brador 14y ago

Why not sue them?

mcherm 14y ago
Because that is a very poor solution to most problems in the world.
- statictype 14y ago
  As much as I hate to admit it, the threat of a lawsuit seems to be helpful in keeping many people and corporations in line.
  - brador 14y ago
    Most people tend a very negative view towards suing. Personally, when you're in the right and have a strong case, as the above seems to have, it works beautifully. I've had the written threat to sue work, as well as the actual suing. It's not as expensive, or time consuming, as you think and is the primary method of contract enforcement. It's also kinda fun and an interesting intellectual experience.
anonymouz 14y ago
As far as I understand one would have to sue in small claims court in California to get anything out of it. Since I'm in Europe, it unfortunately is not a cost-effective option. (I think I paid ~500$ for the original plan, so it's cheaper to write it off)
- drivingmenuts 14y ago
  > so it's cheaper to write it off That's what they're counting on.
  - anonymouz 14y ago
    Probably. Unfortunately it's still true: I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars and lots of my time to sue them in California.

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago

"lifetime" "unlimited" "forever" etc products should always been looked at sceptically for that reason. Anything that is either finite or requires up-keep cannot be offered on these terms, it is just impossible. I actually avoid unlimited products on purpose because I think a lie is a bad way to start doing business together. Be it web-hosting, broadband, or anything else. I would prefer they just be up front and then we both know where we stand (no ambiguity).

JoachimSchipper 14y ago
If the upkeep is smaller than the cost of capital to the company, such an arrangement probably remains mutually beneficial. Given that the cost of computing resources was falling enormously and continues doing so, I can see why TextDrive expected this arrangement to be profitable for them. Note that pensions and annuities, arrangements with terms best described as "pay $X/month for as long as I live", exist. (Of course, they pivoted out of the hosting business and found that supporting a one-off machine is an expensive headache. But it's not impossible for such an arrangement to work.)
khet 14y ago
If as a business you decide to offer a lifetime plan, it is assumed that you have accounted for the up-keep of the service. Joyent should be held responsible for not holding up their end of the deal.
irahul 14y ago
> "lifetime" "unlimited" "forever" etc products should always been looked at sceptically for that reason. Anything that is either finite or requires up-keep cannot be offered on these terms, it is just impossible. When a company is offering "lifetime", "unlimited", "forever" et al, the most likely reason is it is cash strapped and is hoping to raise some cash with these lucrative schemes. I, as a customer, am well aware about "no free lunches" but we are entering an agreement when I buy your supposedly "lifetime" plan. When you do an 180 later because the initial money you got from me isn't enough to keep me running forever, it isn't something unplanned that happened to you. You always knew that. It's just that you are hell bent on screwing me.

xentronium 14y ago

Red herring. Besides, as far as I understand, Textdrive is in the process of being relaunched, honoring all the lifetime plans.

irahul 14y ago
> Red herring. Here is a company with a history of making tall claims and then doing an 180. How is pointing that out a red herring? > Besides, as far as I understand, Textdrive is in the process of being relaunched, honoring all the lifetime plans. From what I know of the story, if they do honor lifetime plans, it isn't out of the goodness of their hearts. They had every intention of flipping the lifetime planholders, and they did, and what they are doing now is damage control.
- xentronium 14y ago
  > Here is a company with a history of making tall claims and then doing an 180. How is pointing that out a red herring? That isn't particularly relevant to service quality and stability, is it? Maybe it's just me, but I try not to pay much attention to PR bullshit, since they have to make bold claims in order to succeed. p.s. that their blog was down for the last three hours is somewhat ironic, though.
  - josephlord 14y ago
    Whether you fundamentally trust your provider to try to do what they agreed 'isn't particularly relevant to service quality and stability'? Did you really mean that?
    - xentronium 14y ago
      The whole lifetime plan debacle was a really big blunder from PR standpoint, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a rip-off. Deal that started in 2004-2006 and lasted through to 2012 is 6 to 8 years worth of hosting. As far as I understand, they also offer one more year of free hosting as a compensation, which makes it 7 to 9 years. 7 to 9 years of hosting for $500 is okay in my books. Of course, that doesn't make their PR blunder look any better, they should've just swallowed the costs, but I don't 'fundamentally distrust' them based solely on this case.