• RE: pricing on websites

    @dashrender said in pricing on websites:

    @mike-davis said in pricing on websites:

    The second reason is you can't put a price on a project like an Office 365 migration. At least I can't afford to without knowing a lot of details about the environment.

    I'm not sure you need to price something specific like that.

    You might list something like
    Cisco firewall support $200/hr
    Windows desktop support $100/hr
    Unifi hardware support $150/hr
    etc
    But really, should an O365 migration be a project price and not hourly? You'd have to make the project price significantly more than the anticipated hourly to cover your bases in case there are issues.

    If you do enough of them you can flat scope them on a base time Plus xxx per mailbox (knowing they average out). Write your scope to assume health AD and exchange, and list the first 4 hours as discovery. If it’s messy you can throw a scope amendment to fix the environment.

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: pricing on websites

    @dashrender said in pricing on websites:

    @jaredbusch said in pricing on websites:

    I suspect you are giving away a ton of your time in order to make lower fixed rate deals.

    I know I did this when I used to do flat rates.. i never included my time of making the quotes.. but assuming I had an employee doing that work, who's paying them? Me - out of my profits? That's crazy talk.. The client is getting free work in this case - and that's just not good for business.

    I would offer 4 hours @250$ per hour to do a scope discovery project to build the flat rate project.

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: pricing on websites

    @dashrender said in pricing on websites:

    @mike-davis said in pricing on websites:

    @coliver said in pricing on websites:

    @mike-davis said in pricing on websites:

    The second one says he really doesn't know how long it's going to take, but to trust him that he won't overbill me and he's going to do the best job he can. He tells me that if I pay for hours up front I'll get a better rate, but he can't really tell me how many hours he anticipates using.

    This is called "time and materials" and is very common for most contractors and construction projects.

    So is bidding on jobs...

    Sure, but bidding on jobs at a flat rate means the seller needs to build in fluff time or risk loosing a ton of money (paying employees to work where there are problems, where the client isn't paying them for that work, because it wasn't part of the flat rate consideration).

    While I did build in some overhead, the real key is aggressively scoping things in and out of scope. Customer doesn’t provide me with vpn access on time, you get a contract amendment for the wasted time and creeping my scope as I had to setup my own vpn profile. Basically “fining” the customer for bad behavior or their suppliers not delivering in time is how you protect yourself on a flat rate contract.

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: pricing on websites

    Listing hourly rates isn’t terribly useful because without a project scope and estimate you don’t know if it will take me 4 hours or 400. It’s like knowing how many gallons of gas I have without knowing the vehicle....

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: pricing on websites

    @dustinb3403 said in pricing on websites:

    My biggest issue with not having a listed price for your services or software is this. If I can't even gauge how much it might cost be to do business, then how can I even begin to understand the value of your services or software.

    IE: If I want to by an Amazon Echo or Google Home Mini I can just look up the list price and have a ballpark idea of what I'm going to be spending.

    I should have some means of doing that, with any software or service provider. At least I feel I should. .

    It boils down on more complicated software that without an SE 99% of people would order the wrong thing.

    @mike-davis said in pricing on websites:

    @scottalanmiller said in pricing on websites:

    Nope, it's the best possible thing for them. Let's them determine their needs, get the best pricing, and not get burned by bad estimates or scope changes. From a customer side, it's literally the best thing I could imagine. Without it, they'd be stuck either paying as they go (which would force everyone into higher prices) or into the scoping disaster. It's the best form of customer protection we could think of.

    Don't you have to estimate the hours to figure out how many hours they need to buy?

    Why does paying as you go force higher prices?

    Because
    I have to carry the payroll costs up front. Blocks of hours I could discount 10%

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: CALs: Silly or Not?

    @tim_g said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

    They defined publicly as "e.g. outside the firewall", and "not restricted to affiliates or employees".

    This is almost as fun as the VDI licensing that my iPad needed if it was outside the office or inside the office 🙂

    Microsoft licensing based on geography or network topology is always a mess.

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: CALs: Silly or Not?

    @scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

    Publicly means unidentified. If you authenticate a public user, for example (and for others reading - authenticate in no way implies AD or any form or Windows or Microsoft authentication mechanism) then they need a User CAL.
    Without those you need an EC, which is a public CAL.

    Who the fuck does authentication on public DNS?

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: CALs: Silly or Not?

    @scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

    @storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

    @scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

    How does a computer ever know how many users there are? Name any system in the universe that can do this?

    Run a simple automated report against your Users OU....

    And then your information would be potentially completely wrong. That was the point, since the thing that you license has no connection to OUs.

    For example, what if you didn't use AD at all. Not like you get to skip your licensing just because you don't have that one feature.

    If you use User CALs you don't have to worry about devices. It's an "Or" not an AND was my understanding.

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: Refurbed Cisco gear? (from xByte)

    @dashrender said in Refurbed Cisco gear? (from xByte):

    @rojoloco said in Refurbed Cisco gear? (from xByte):

    @dashrender said in Refurbed Cisco gear? (from xByte):

    @beta said in Refurbed Cisco gear? (from xByte):

    I currently have a 5508 running the APs and was looking at pricing for SmartNet renewal and thought maybe it would be smarter to get a refurbed 5508 instead and just keep that onsite as a spare.

    How do you get security updates for the controllers and APs if you don't have SmartNet? And like normal I'm late to the game.

    You don't. That's the problem.

    LOL - that was kinda my point. How can one even consider running Cisco gear today without SmartNet? If you can't afford SmartNet, you can't afford to run Cisco. Buy Ubiquiti or MicroTik (or is it Tek?) and get life of the gear updates while saving a ton and likely getting a faster product.

    Actually, Cisco lost the court case on this (after they abducted a Canadian). Security fixes are available. You also get free updates for life if you buy a 1RU switch (Catlyst 3K's etc).

    https://damn.technology/free-cisco-ios-updates

    posted in IT Discussion
  • RE: CALs: Silly or Not?

    @scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

    I somewhat agree. However, Microsoft (in this case) could not price their stuff so exorbitantly.

    Doesn't matter, flat pricing like this would always screw the companies that are smaller compared to bigger ones. It's "taxing the poor".

    It's a regressive tax. Also, the majority of Microsofts Revenue comes from the F500. If you think they will drop the price vs. sacrifice the SMB market if they had to make a choice and do a flat price you are crazy. Giving a lower price to SMBs without a reason for it would trigger most favored nation clauses.

    I've always laughed at people who love appliance pricing (It's unlimited per box!) vs. per user pricing. On Per User Pricing I know what my cost model for growth is. On an appliance, I might arbitrarily hit a bottleneck. I'm at the mercy of how efficient they implemented their features...

    posted in IT Discussion

Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.