Preview 3 new Licensing

Discussion in 'Plesk Automation Suggestions and Feedback' started by GregorL, Mar 1, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GregorL

    GregorL Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    65
    I have to say the new licensing scheme for PPA is a major disappointment for me and the hosts I work for will very likely not be able to use the product now.

    For those of you who did not read the document, it will go to the typical || scheme of charging per server (web and mail servers).

    This is just completely impossible for a small host to afford.

    Just to give you one example. Let say the host with some thousand customers has 20 customers that want to stay on MS Frontpage for whatever stupid reason.
    Under H-Sphere we can have one web server with apache 1.3 and MS FP extensions sitting around where those 20 customers reside.
    Now with this licensing scheme there is no way to make this financially feasible.

    Any chance to still offer a per account pricing scheme?
     
  2. bdowne01

    bdowne01 Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    12
    Wow, this is just completely disappointing. We quite literally won't be moving off hsphere if this is the case... Not nice, Parallels.
     
  3. Andrew Andriatis

    Andrew Andriatis Odin Team

    Messages:
    437
    Hi,
    These are good points and I will definitelly bring it up with our marketing. Thanks.
     
  4. TeleType

    TeleType Bit Poster

    Messages:
    2
    I'm disappointed too.
    This per server licensing scheme make almost useless the multiserver structure.
    How can I effectively separate services (mysql, mail, web, SMTP etc, just like I currently do in H-sphere) if I have to pay several times the same price?
    What if I want to dedicate a single server to a single customer?
    And, lastly, I have owned H-sphere licenses. How do you convert them to make me migrate to the new platform?

    Thanks
    Oto Tortorella
     
  5. StephenE

    StephenE Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    23
    I welcome the per server license, if you compare the pricing, it works out.

    Look at the price of plesk as it is now, if you cant afford $40 a month at the retail rate, per mail and web server, what are you doing in hosting?

    If you sign a partner agreement, and grow you can reduce your per server rate greatly.
    We are a partner, and we sell for dedicated servers the unlimited license for Plesk for $35 a month, so just take that into consideration, we would not sell it for a loss ;)

    This model is actually the market standard way of service provider licensing and I welcome this model, instead of a 'license and SUS' model that was implemented by Hsphere and enforced greatly by Parallels much to people's chargin since they had been used to never having to pay for SUS.

    We have many, many owned licenses, and they don't always balance out to 'used' at the time, but they are still owned as such, SUS is applied to them, and with this you are paying maintenance on things you are not using. with a per server model you are paying for exactly what you use, and it even helps your budgeting as a business.

    Say you want to launch a new plan, on small servers, budget $40 for license, $200 for server/bandwidth, and $20 for misc software licenses, you have $260 a month in costs that you know are coming and you need to get $260 to break even, and set your prices accordingly. with the 'paid license' model you may not be 'paying' for that server, but you are paying for every idle user you have licensed.

    Compare this to the PBAS license model per user, and the rates they charge for it, and you would be absolutely shouting with joy to take a per server model, especially if you have resellers. the PBAS pricing charges per reseller at some rates that would put us out of business and buried 1000ft under the sea.
     
  6. GregorL

    GregorL Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    65
    You calculation sounds reasonable at first, however, actually calculating the numbers creates a much different picture.

    This is the example for just one small company I work with:

    6 Web Servers
    2 Mail Servers

    Current SUS for H-Sphere: $1500/Year
    Plesk based on the retail lease price you mentioned: $3840/Year
    (Not even counting the "small fee" for the actual management Server.)

    For a small business, a considerable price difference however you want to spin it.

    The point is though that I do not see a problem with TWO pricing options and everybody can choose what they want.
    Per Server or Per user.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  7. dynamicnet

    dynamicnet Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    93
    Good day:

    Most of the customers we manage have multiple servers.

    The per account pricing in Parallels H-Sphere always made sense since it is a multi-server automation system.

    Thank you.
     
  8. StephenE

    StephenE Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    23

    You aren't taking into account the other ways it is done. I could very likely virtualize all the servers you have now onto a couple nodes and use the virtualized pricing, taking that to below your $1500 a year.

    :) I have you the HIGHEST cost possible, there are other pricing models, and very few people just 'need' those hardware nodes anymore. It saves you time, effort, rack space and power (if you colo it matters) and it gives you more powerful, more flexible servers for the long haul.
     
  9. dynamicnet

    dynamicnet Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    93
    Greetings Stephen:

    We are using Citrix Xenserver ourselves.

    The per license pricing is typically per virtual machine or physical server.

    That still makes account licensing more practical for many H-Sphere providers who run multiple vm's / physical machines.

    Thank you.
     
  10. StephenE

    StephenE Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    23


    Account licensing is not practical :) I've compared the numbers across the board.
     
  11. dynamicnet

    dynamicnet Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    93
    Good day, StephenE:

    Per server licensing is typically done per node/virtual machine. So you don't save any money going virtual because you are paying for each vm... not just the server.

    Per account typically makes more sense when you do have a number of vm's / servers involved.

    If you are going to make statements where you come across as having knowledge no one else has access to, at least present the numbers both ways and make a case for it.

    Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  12. bdowne01

    bdowne01 Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    12
    As others have posted it here, it would literally quadruple our costs. I'm glad it works out for you, but for others it doesn't work out at all. Chalk in another vote for offering both licensing models.

    All this drama with Hsphere really has me thinking of going back to old school and just go back to writing something ourselves. I'm seriously getting tired of being lead around on leash after ||'s stepped in.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  13. StephenE

    StephenE Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    23
    With Parallels products, you are offered pricing for virtual servers, that is less than hardware nodes, so you are not paying for virtual servers as it they are hardware nodes.
    Even if you DO pay for them as if they are hardware nodes, the pricing comes out very attractive compared to the other options.
     
  14. StephenE

    StephenE Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    23
    At what level would it quadruple your costs? Over SUS that you may or may not pay?

    Do you have the figures in hand to know that it would quadruple your costs?

    I can send you examples of PBAS pricing that we could offer to you, as we are a parallels partner, to compare per user to per server. These aren't the prices we get, or the pricing retail, but what we would charge to offer such to you if you were here as a colo client or dedicated server client.

    Per server is less(by varying levels depending on your setup) than per user in most every case. I can see one case it would not be and that is a 100 user setup with no resellers, and that's it, never will you grow and want more licenses.

    Per server also offers far greater flexibly of services offered and licensed. such as the coldfusion addon, or other items can just be licensed on a single server and not needing a large multiple server license.

    Tell me approx how many licenses you have and servers, and I can work a comparable.

    Basically the problem I see here is that people are making decisions based on either legacy 'I OWN these licenses' type thinking, or simply what they were paying, or in many cases before parallels not paying, for SUS, and not based on an actively developed, upgraded, and reliable platform to continue offering hosting into the years to come.

    If you are happy with an outdated product (that thanks to Blake has had some good updates), that doesn't offer features that the market demands today, I don't see a point in upgrading from Hsphere.

    If you want a product that can ease your management, make you have the ability to offer to customers what they want in products and services, and the ability to provide hosting services like CDN networks(nginx integration coming in plesk 11, nginx server groups will follow in PPA later version), very nice online site builders (new parallels web presence tool), and modern web servers with a modern level of control over them, you need to consider the move process and product.

    This product is well suited for the hosting market, with the per server model it fits squarely at market, Parallels is competitive in pricing in every way to cpanel, and the added benefit of a cluster service, WHMCS makes this a little bit of a possibility but not with the SQL/MAIL flexibility introduced by PPA. This product has the ability to drive the market forward in ways that have not been done before, and even put the competitive force on Cpanel to finally make a true multi server panel for cross platform that will benefit all hosters in the future even further.

    There are thousands of hosts, many running cpanel, they mange to turn a profit, some of them a very nice profit, why can't you(and I don't mean that directly to YOU) paying per server? It is one of the best pricing models offered to service providers to ensure ongoing support of your product and innovation.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  15. dynamicnet

    dynamicnet Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    93
    Greetings StephenE:

    Are you an existing Parallels H-Sphere provider?

    It is my understanding the Parallels Multi-Server Plesk is a migration path being created for H-Sphere providers.

    Most H-Sphere providers own their H-Sphere license. They are not renting their H-Sphere license.

    We don't pay a monthly fee for our user base.

    Most only pay an annual SUS (software update service) fee based on the account license number.

    Thank you.
     
  16. StephenE

    StephenE Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    23
    Peter,

    YES, I am an existing host.
    APYL/JodoHost. I am not here to make ads, I am here to push forward what is best for all of us here.

    Yes we own, multiples tens of thousands of licenses. Even when comparing the SUS costs, the per server model comes out to be a better product, more actively developed and moving forward. the owned license model is shown to be a proven failure at this point, because it is not actively maintained like other products. The price paid was very low, and the return for many years, so it was not a bad investment, but it is time to move on and forward if you want a viable product in todays market. People expected Parallels to continue providing support even without paying SUS like it has been for almost a decade before, and when Parallels wanted money to make things better, everyone fought back, even us. We wanted to see a real investment to the product first, and I am finally seeing that here.
     
  17. GregorL

    GregorL Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    65
    maybe that is the why it works for you but not for others.

    I represent the interest of several smaller hosts having between two thousand and fifteen thousand accounts each and so far looking at numbers I can get RIGHT NOW from a large datacenter for example ($40/pserver/month $30/vserver/month) it more then doubles their annual software costs.

    I doubt those smaller hosts are interested or able to keep up with || "minimum commitment" to become a partner.

    IMHO the fact that parallels is using per server pricing is neither a sign of better quality of their product nor a sign of being a success. Instead it is simply the result of a very smart destruction of their competition over the years to deprive us of choices.

    Either way, I believe there should be OPTIONS to choose from.
     
  18. StephenE

    StephenE Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    23
    It works out better for as little as 500 licenses to do per server.....because the way things 'have been' on pricing is unrealistic to continue, it will go up in price.
    $30 per vserver is still on the high side. If you are running at least 5 servers it could be resold to you, by us or other providers that are a platinum partner more like $15. Our virtual server pricing is listed at $20 on our site, and that includes the power pack.
    There is still competition out there, Hosting Controller is actually gaining ground, if there is a market, there will be a product.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
  19. bdowne01

    bdowne01 Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    12
    We have 12 servers and 200 licenses.
     
  20. StephenE

    StephenE Kilo Poster

    Messages:
    23
    All 12 web and mail, or counting SQL in that as well?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page