XCP-ng pricing
-
Which all of these additional fees might be trivial in the grand scheme, but it would greatly reduce the burden of providing support.
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
Now my reasons for the pricing breakdown there goes with core counting. Olivier is considering a flat cost per host (which makes no sense to me).
I agree, that would be nuts. They should learn from the big boys and model after them where it makes sense.
Pricing should be based on capacity or use or something meaningful. "Number of boxes" is not meaningful. A "box" might be a quad core, 32GB nice desktop from five years ago. Or it might be a 512 core, 4TB monster. Same price for both? That's crazy.
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
How would you guys value support for XCP-ng? Is my pricing insanely low, just about right or way to costly?
I valued the support per core, and on the "just right" range per year of
$348/host/yearwould be a 64 core system at $6/core.Obviously this price could change, but that isn't an abnormally large or small server either.
The model is fine, but the pricing seems like. At $6/core you'd have small servers at $24 a year, that's not enough. Maybe $8-$10/core. Or maybe an eight core minimum because at some point, you just can't justify it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
How would you guys value support for XCP-ng? Is my pricing insanely low, just about right or way to costly?
I valued the support per core, and on the "just right" range per year of
$348/host/yearwould be a 64 core system at $6/core.Obviously this price could change, but that isn't an abnormally large or small server either.
The model is fine, but the pricing seems like. At $6/core you'd have small servers at $24 a year, that's not enough. Maybe $8-$10/core. Or maybe an eight core minimum because at some point, you just can't justify it.
Yeah I was just randomly throwing numbers in the air based on what is available list price for comparable support (xenserver.org).
Up or down a few dollars / core wouldn't hurt in any way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
How would you guys value support for XCP-ng? Is my pricing insanely low, just about right or way to costly?
I valued the support per core, and on the "just right" range per year of
$348/host/yearwould be a 64 core system at $6/core.Obviously this price could change, but that isn't an abnormally large or small server either.
The model is fine, but the pricing seems like. At $6/core you'd have small servers at $24 a year, that's not enough. Maybe $8-$10/core. Or maybe an eight core minimum because at some point, you just can't justify it.
Yeah I mentioned before the core based model would be best now, but look at how many people can't do simple logic and math and get confused at the MS core based model (which is excellent btw).
I'd be afraid a new company using that same model would have too many scared away customers without being already widely known and used... an advantage MS already had when switching to core model.
-
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce so you would favor the existing support model that many businesses already do.
Per socket or tiers of support.
Well, if someone has a server with 4 sockets, and each CPU has 32 physical cores, and they are running some crazy system or number of VMs... that has the potential to be one hell of a support case.
Not necessarily tiers, but it covers the kind of support you may expect.
That everyone no matter what the use case is, should pay the same price of support, I think, isn't 100% fair.
And that is my argument as well for the pricing I proposed.
The customers that exist with massive servers paying for support would end up with a system like you describe would essentially get support at little to no cost compared to a well designed and balanced support plan.
Right, a socket-based server pricing is fine for now, and could change in 5-10 years and go to core based...
Really, core based is best NOW..... but the general population can't figure out how to do core based pricing for some reason, so I can see that being a put-off.
If you can't figure out core, you aren't a viable customer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce so you would favor the existing support model that many businesses already do.
Per socket or tiers of support.
Well, if someone has a server with 4 sockets, and each CPU has 32 physical cores, and they are running some crazy system or number of VMs... that has the potential to be one hell of a support case.
Not necessarily tiers, but it covers the kind of support you may expect.
That everyone no matter what the use case is, should pay the same price of support, I think, isn't 100% fair.
And that is my argument as well for the pricing I proposed.
The customers that exist with massive servers paying for support would end up with a system like you describe would essentially get support at little to no cost compared to a well designed and balanced support plan.
Right, a socket-based server pricing is fine for now, and could change in 5-10 years and go to core based...
Really, core based is best NOW..... but the general population can't figure out how to do core based pricing for some reason, so I can see that being a put-off.
If you can't figure out core, you aren't a viable customer.
Right the only reason people cannot figure it out is because people are too stupid to do basic math.
MS core pricing is very simple. You pay for what you have with a couple minor minimum requirements.
-
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce so you would favor the existing support model that many businesses already do.
Per socket or tiers of support.
Well, if someone has a server with 4 sockets, and each CPU has 32 physical cores, and they are running some crazy system or number of VMs... that has the potential to be one hell of a support case.
Not necessarily tiers, but it covers the kind of support you may expect.
That everyone no matter what the use case is, should pay the same price of support, I think, isn't 100% fair.
And that is my argument as well for the pricing I proposed.
The customers that exist with massive servers paying for support would end up with a system like you describe would essentially get support at little to no cost compared to a well designed and balanced support plan.
Right, a socket-based server pricing is fine for now, and could change in 5-10 years and go to core based...
Really, core based is best NOW..... but the general population can't figure out how to do core based pricing for some reason, so I can see that being a put-off.
If you can't figure out core, you aren't a viable customer.
Right the only reason people cannot figure it out is because people are too stupid to do basic math.
MS core pricing is very simple. You pay for what you have with a couple minor minimum requirements.
Totally agree, but look how widespread that stupidity was, and still is. Windows Server 2016 licensing is one of the top hits on my blog, still!
Are you sure you don't want ANY of those people buying support for or using XCP-ng?
-
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce so you would favor the existing support model that many businesses already do.
Per socket or tiers of support.
Well, if someone has a server with 4 sockets, and each CPU has 32 physical cores, and they are running some crazy system or number of VMs... that has the potential to be one hell of a support case.
Not necessarily tiers, but it covers the kind of support you may expect.
That everyone no matter what the use case is, should pay the same price of support, I think, isn't 100% fair.
And that is my argument as well for the pricing I proposed.
The customers that exist with massive servers paying for support would end up with a system like you describe would essentially get support at little to no cost compared to a well designed and balanced support plan.
Right, a socket-based server pricing is fine for now, and could change in 5-10 years and go to core based...
Really, core based is best NOW..... but the general population can't figure out how to do core based pricing for some reason, so I can see that being a put-off.
If you can't figure out core, you aren't a viable customer.
Right the only reason people cannot figure it out is because people are too stupid to do basic math.
MS core pricing is very simple. You pay for what you have with a couple minor minimum requirements.
Totally agree, but look how widespread that stupidity was, and still is. Windows Server 2016 licensing is one of the top hits on my blog, still!
Are you sure you don't want ANY of those people buying support for or using XCP-ng?
It's a trade off, do you want to lose a few people from a pool that have a near zero percent chance of considering the product? Or do you want to alienate your core potential user base?
XCP-NG is a product for smart IT people, not fodder that can't handle Windows licensing. No product can be made for everyone, this one isn't made for them from the get go, catering to them in the pricing wouldn't make sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce so you would favor the existing support model that many businesses already do.
Per socket or tiers of support.
Well, if someone has a server with 4 sockets, and each CPU has 32 physical cores, and they are running some crazy system or number of VMs... that has the potential to be one hell of a support case.
Not necessarily tiers, but it covers the kind of support you may expect.
That everyone no matter what the use case is, should pay the same price of support, I think, isn't 100% fair.
And that is my argument as well for the pricing I proposed.
The customers that exist with massive servers paying for support would end up with a system like you describe would essentially get support at little to no cost compared to a well designed and balanced support plan.
Right, a socket-based server pricing is fine for now, and could change in 5-10 years and go to core based...
Really, core based is best NOW..... but the general population can't figure out how to do core based pricing for some reason, so I can see that being a put-off.
If you can't figure out core, you aren't a viable customer.
Right the only reason people cannot figure it out is because people are too stupid to do basic math.
MS core pricing is very simple. You pay for what you have with a couple minor minimum requirements.
Totally agree, but look how widespread that stupidity was, and still is. Windows Server 2016 licensing is one of the top hits on my blog, still!
Are you sure you don't want ANY of those people buying support for or using XCP-ng?
It's a trade off, do you want to lose a few people from a pool that have a near zero percent chance of considering the product? Or do you want to alienate your core potential user base?
This appears to contradict what it seems you're stating in the next sentence.
XCP-NG is a product for smart IT people, not fodder that can't handle Windows licensing. No product can be made for everyone, this one isn't made for them from the get go, catering to them in the pricing wouldn't make sense.
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
Totally agree, but look how widespread that stupidity was, and still is. Windows Server 2016 licensing is one of the top hits on my blog, still!
Are you sure you don't want ANY of those people buying support for or using XCP-ng?
The few people who can't add shouldn't be the target audience of this product. Focus on the people and businesses who understand that there is extremely good value in core based licensing models for everyone involved.
Doing something as stupid as per host licensing just abuses the people who know how to count. .
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce so you would favor the existing support model that many businesses already do.
Per socket or tiers of support.
Well, if someone has a server with 4 sockets, and each CPU has 32 physical cores, and they are running some crazy system or number of VMs... that has the potential to be one hell of a support case.
Not necessarily tiers, but it covers the kind of support you may expect.
That everyone no matter what the use case is, should pay the same price of support, I think, isn't 100% fair.
And that is my argument as well for the pricing I proposed.
The customers that exist with massive servers paying for support would end up with a system like you describe would essentially get support at little to no cost compared to a well designed and balanced support plan.
Right, a socket-based server pricing is fine for now, and could change in 5-10 years and go to core based...
Really, core based is best NOW..... but the general population can't figure out how to do core based pricing for some reason, so I can see that being a put-off.
If you can't figure out core, you aren't a viable customer.
Right the only reason people cannot figure it out is because people are too stupid to do basic math.
MS core pricing is very simple. You pay for what you have with a couple minor minimum requirements.
Totally agree, but look how widespread that stupidity was, and still is. Windows Server 2016 licensing is one of the top hits on my blog, still!
Are you sure you don't want ANY of those people buying support for or using XCP-ng?
It's a trade off, do you want to lose a few people from a pool that have a near zero percent chance of considering the product? Or do you want to alienate your core potential user base?
XCP-NG is a product for smart IT people, not fodder that can't handle Windows licensing. No product can be made for everyone, this one isn't made for them from the get go, catering to them in the pricing wouldn't make sense.
That's a good point.
Yes, then I would agree to Core-based support, with a minimum core-count per host, similar to Wndows Server licensing then.
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce so you would favor the existing support model that many businesses already do.
Per socket or tiers of support.
Well, if someone has a server with 4 sockets, and each CPU has 32 physical cores, and they are running some crazy system or number of VMs... that has the potential to be one hell of a support case.
Not necessarily tiers, but it covers the kind of support you may expect.
That everyone no matter what the use case is, should pay the same price of support, I think, isn't 100% fair.
And that is my argument as well for the pricing I proposed.
The customers that exist with massive servers paying for support would end up with a system like you describe would essentially get support at little to no cost compared to a well designed and balanced support plan.
Right, a socket-based server pricing is fine for now, and could change in 5-10 years and go to core based...
Really, core based is best NOW..... but the general population can't figure out how to do core based pricing for some reason, so I can see that being a put-off.
If you can't figure out core, you aren't a viable customer.
Right the only reason people cannot figure it out is because people are too stupid to do basic math.
MS core pricing is very simple. You pay for what you have with a couple minor minimum requirements.
Totally agree, but look how widespread that stupidity was, and still is. Windows Server 2016 licensing is one of the top hits on my blog, still!
Are you sure you don't want ANY of those people buying support for or using XCP-ng?
It's a trade off, do you want to lose a few people from a pool that have a near zero percent chance of considering the product? Or do you want to alienate your core potential user base?
This appears to contradict what it seems you're stating in the next sentence.
XCP-NG is a product for smart IT people, not fodder that can't handle Windows licensing.
No, both support the same point... you need to support the smart customers not the clueless non-customers.
-
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce so you would favor the existing support model that many businesses already do.
Per socket or tiers of support.
Well, if someone has a server with 4 sockets, and each CPU has 32 physical cores, and they are running some crazy system or number of VMs... that has the potential to be one hell of a support case.
Not necessarily tiers, but it covers the kind of support you may expect.
That everyone no matter what the use case is, should pay the same price of support, I think, isn't 100% fair.
And that is my argument as well for the pricing I proposed.
The customers that exist with massive servers paying for support would end up with a system like you describe would essentially get support at little to no cost compared to a well designed and balanced support plan.
Right, a socket-based server pricing is fine for now, and could change in 5-10 years and go to core based...
Really, core based is best NOW..... but the general population can't figure out how to do core based pricing for some reason, so I can see that being a put-off.
If you can't figure out core, you aren't a viable customer.
Right the only reason people cannot figure it out is because people are too stupid to do basic math.
MS core pricing is very simple. You pay for what you have with a couple minor minimum requirements.
Totally agree, but look how widespread that stupidity was, and still is. Windows Server 2016 licensing is one of the top hits on my blog, still!
Are you sure you don't want ANY of those people buying support for or using XCP-ng?
It's a trade off, do you want to lose a few people from a pool that have a near zero percent chance of considering the product? Or do you want to alienate your core potential user base?
XCP-NG is a product for smart IT people, not fodder that can't handle Windows licensing. No product can be made for everyone, this one isn't made for them from the get go, catering to them in the pricing wouldn't make sense.
That's a good point.
Yes, then I would agree to Core-based support, with a minimum core-count per host, similar to Wndows Server licensing then.
Yes, Windows Server pricing seems almost perfect for XCP. They have the same essential customer type and range.
-
I would start thinking about pricing similarly to the competition, then what Jared said makes sense:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
If the closest competitor is $350 per socket, then that means that you start there and figure out what differentiates your service from the competitor and if that makes it worth more or less.
So, if you want a minimum of $350 per year for a host, you'd do something like:
- $22 / core / host / year (16-core minimum / host)
-
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
I would start thinking about pricing similarly to the competition, then what Jared said makes sense:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
If the closest competitor is $350 per socket, then that means that you start there and figure out what differentiates your service from the competitor and if that makes it worth more or less.
So, if you want a minimum of $350 per year for a host, you'd do something like:
- $22 / core / host / year (16-core minimum / host)
Yeah, the minimum size that you could purchase support for would be 16 cores, but you could have as few cores as you realistically want.
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
I would start thinking about pricing similarly to the competition, then what Jared said makes sense:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
If the closest competitor is $350 per socket, then that means that you start there and figure out what differentiates your service from the competitor and if that makes it worth more or less.
So, if you want a minimum of $350 per year for a host, you'd do something like:
- $22 / core / host / year (16-core minimum / host)
Yeah, the minimum size that you could purchase support for would be 16 cores, but you could have as few cores as you realistically want.
16 seems high to me. I get why they want a minimum, but SO many customers want something smaller.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
I would start thinking about pricing similarly to the competition, then what Jared said makes sense:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
If the closest competitor is $350 per socket, then that means that you start there and figure out what differentiates your service from the competitor and if that makes it worth more or less.
So, if you want a minimum of $350 per year for a host, you'd do something like:
- $22 / core / host / year (16-core minimum / host)
Yeah, the minimum size that you could purchase support for would be 16 cores, but you could have as few cores as you realistically want.
16 seems high to me. I get why they want a minimum, but SO many customers want something smaller.
For the Devs to bring in $500k a year, they'd need over 2,800 accounts paying for a 8-core minimum @ $22 / core.
I doubt that's enough to cover all overhead, salaries, etc.
-
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
I would start thinking about pricing similarly to the competition, then what Jared said makes sense:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
If the closest competitor is $350 per socket, then that means that you start there and figure out what differentiates your service from the competitor and if that makes it worth more or less.
So, if you want a minimum of $350 per year for a host, you'd do something like:
- $22 / core / host / year (16-core minimum / host)
Yeah, the minimum size that you could purchase support for would be 16 cores, but you could have as few cores as you realistically want.
16 seems high to me. I get why they want a minimum, but SO many customers want something smaller.
For the Devs to bring in $500k a year, they'd need over 2,800 accounts paying for a 8-core minimum @ $22 / core.
I doubt that's enough to cover all overhead, salaries, etc.
2,800 accounts of only that one tier, would likely be decent there. Think about how many support hours there are for such small clients. Let's say 10 over a four year contract is likely as an average. That's actually pretty high.
That's 28,000 hours over four years, or 7,000 hours a year. That four engineers to cover that time if you did it purely with engineers and never with helpdesk staff taking the load (which they have.) $500K will trivially cover that head count.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
I would start thinking about pricing similarly to the competition, then what Jared said makes sense:
@jaredbusch said in XCP-ng pricing:
If the closest competitor is $350 per socket, then that means that you start there and figure out what differentiates your service from the competitor and if that makes it worth more or less.
So, if you want a minimum of $350 per year for a host, you'd do something like:
- $22 / core / host / year (16-core minimum / host)
Yeah, the minimum size that you could purchase support for would be 16 cores, but you could have as few cores as you realistically want.
16 seems high to me. I get why they want a minimum, but SO many customers want something smaller.
For the Devs to bring in $500k a year, they'd need over 2,800 accounts paying for a 8-core minimum @ $22 / core.
I doubt that's enough to cover all overhead, salaries, etc.
2,800 accounts of only that one tier, would likely be decent there. Think about how many support hours there are for such small clients. Let's say 10 over a four year contract is likely as an average. That's actually pretty high.
That's 28,000 hours over four years, or 7,000 hours a year. That four engineers to cover that time if you did it purely with engineers and never with helpdesk staff taking the load (which they have.) $500K will trivially cover that head count.
So the Devs will no longer be Devs, but mostly full time support techs?
-
@obsolesce what @scottalanmiller is saying is that the support demands for a Tier 1 group as outlined in the above conversation would be so trivial that the money coming in, would be way more than enough to cover the cost of needing Help Desk and Support T1 people while keeping the dev team deving. .
