3 ms·
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
by 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 agoExactly; 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.