4 ms·

> I have no simply no trust left that this will go well (which is why wanted to take the refund). Hindsight is 20/20, but lifetime service claim sounds too goo

> I have no simply no trust left that this will go well (which is why wanted to take the refund). Hindsight is 20/20, but lifetime service claim sounds too good to be true anyway. Besides, was that 5-6 years of hosting for $500?

anonymouz 14y ago
It seems quite reasonable when you consider that they used the money to bootstrap their operations: Take some money upfront to buy the servers, and in exchange host a bunch of people for free, covering the operating costs from other income. It was ~6 years in total duration for me (though used on and off). I recognize that buying monthly hosting for an entirety of 6 years is not cheaper, but it's not what I bought. I paid the money upfront, knowing fully well that I would not use it continuously, to have a hassle free way to throw up some small stuff if I need it. Others often seem to have similar use cases (or hosting small websites for local community organizations and similar). I think everybody also recognized that there is a risk the company may go bankrupt, and we're out of hosting, but what's actually happened is that they simply wanted to stop offering the service.
- reitzensteinm 14y ago
  Exactly; selling, say, 2000x$500 lifetime accounts with exponentially decreasing hardware costs is a significantly better deal than the equity you'd give up if you took $1m in VC as an early stage hosting startup. The early adopters didn't just buy a product, they were essentially angel investors. It's every bit as ridiculous as sending Ron Conway an email thanking him for his help but informing him that his equity has been "discontinued", since the investment was a long time ago and no longer convenient, but warmly offering him a refund for his portion of the round.
morganh 14y ago
>Besides, was that 5-6 years of hosting for $500? And how is this any good? 5-6 years of hosting for $500 is $100 per year. Costlier that other hosting arrangements, even better performing than Joyent. And "lifetime" is "lifetime". If the company went down, that would have been another thing, but as it is they should have honoured their deal, even if it "sounds too good to be true". Oh, and deals that "sound too good to be true" is the province of snake-oil salesmen and crooks, not of hosting providers you want your business to depend off. You just make half of the conclusion ("the buyer should have been more careful") and forget the other part: "the seller was a crook".
rdtsc 14y ago
> but lifetime service claim sounds too good to be true anyway. I like how you quickly turned this into the "blame the victim" issue. It is a pretty clear and obvious failure yet you keep defending them and blaming everyone who believed them.

anonymouz 14y ago

It seems quite reasonable when you consider that they used the money to bootstrap their operations: Take some money upfront to buy the servers, and in exchange host a bunch of people for free, covering the operating costs from other income. It was ~6 years in total duration for me (though used on and off). I recognize that buying monthly hosting for an entirety of 6 years is not cheaper, but it's not what I bought. I paid the money upfront, knowing fully well that I would not use it continuously, to have a hassle free way to throw up some small stuff if I need it. Others often seem to have similar use cases (or hosting small websites for local community organizations and similar). I think everybody also recognized that there is a risk the company may go bankrupt, and we're out of hosting, but what's actually happened is that they simply wanted to stop offering the service.

reitzensteinm 14y ago
Exactly; selling, say, 2000x$500 lifetime accounts with exponentially decreasing hardware costs is a significantly better deal than the equity you'd give up if you took $1m in VC as an early stage hosting startup. The early adopters didn't just buy a product, they were essentially angel investors. It's every bit as ridiculous as sending Ron Conway an email thanking him for his help but informing him that his equity has been "discontinued", since the investment was a long time ago and no longer convenient, but warmly offering him a refund for his portion of the round.

morganh 14y ago

>Besides, was that 5-6 years of hosting for $500? And how is this any good? 5-6 years of hosting for $500 is $100 per year. Costlier that other hosting arrangements, even better performing than Joyent. And "lifetime" is "lifetime". If the company went down, that would have been another thing, but as it is they should have honoured their deal, even if it "sounds too good to be true". Oh, and deals that "sound too good to be true" is the province of snake-oil salesmen and crooks, not of hosting providers you want your business to depend off. You just make half of the conclusion ("the buyer should have been more careful") and forget the other part: "the seller was a crook".

rdtsc 14y ago

> but lifetime service claim sounds too good to be true anyway. I like how you quickly turned this into the "blame the victim" issue. It is a pretty clear and obvious failure yet you keep defending them and blaming everyone who believed them.