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.
-
@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. .
-
@obsolesce said in XCP-ng pricing:
@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?
Why would any dev do support? They have $500K coming in for support from one single pricing tier. That's enough to pay an entire tiered support staff including L1, L2 and support engineers.
Heck, for that price, NTG will provide the entire support infrastructure for them! So if you are wondering if that price can do it, I can prove that it can because I'm offering to do it for that price!
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@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. .
Ah I see, misread.
-
What I think is likely the biggest issue is the desire to have a few large customers cover the bills and ignore everyone else (SME rather than SMB customers).
Sadly I think there is are bit to many grandiose wishes and dreams to realize that SMB's need support far more frequently than SMEs do.
-
@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.
Maybe a flat $40 per core, 8 core minimum per host, per year. That ends up being $320 per host per year minimum, which is close to the competition I'm aware of. If XCP-ng privides better supportor offers more, then they can raise or lower price accordingly.
If they like different levels of support, it's easy to say basic support is the same concept, but $30 per core... Or whatever.
-
Tbh xcp-ng is direct competitior to xenserver.
Now: either xenserver is considered legacy s**t no one wants and you can reposition in the middle of vmware and hyperv (that is half price of vmware, being hyperv a no-support option) or you just refer to xenserver prices and propose your full featured pack at the price of their mid pack.
Just to start doing a bit of math. Then Oliver has to see if this is affordable for them.As a price I mean the annual cost per socket/core as the market is regulated by per socket prices and you end up being uncomparable if you move too far from the model. Also more sockets/cores lead to more vm so more issues.
I mean XOA has a good reputation but still xcp-ng is a new thing. I would not disalign from market here.
My 2cents.
-
-
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@danp said in XCP-ng pricing:
Looks like Olivier is still wanting to go with per host pricing.
Just means it's not supported in the SMB market, is all.
That survey makes no sense and basically tells me they aren't even going to talk to customers, let alone listen. The decision is made and they are using the survey to pretend to have looked into it.
-
I think the bottom line is... with per host licensing, no one is going to take them seriously. The SMB market will not be willing to get screwed to supplement the big boys. The big boys will realize that their support will be shit because they don't make any money on them. It's a big statement that you don't want to buy support here. The lack of customer empathy is a major issue. It feels like they are totally disconnected and not thinking about their customers.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@danp said in XCP-ng pricing:
Looks like Olivier is still wanting to go with per host pricing.
Just means it's not supported in the SMB market, is all.
That survey makes no sense and basically tells me they aren't even going to talk to customers, let alone listen. The decision is made and they are using the survey to pretend to have looked into it.
Which literally means the community version is the only real option, albeit with community support.
I specifically spoke (via chat message) and told him how simple core licensing is and makes sense. The fact that he posted the same questions as a survey is just damning for the project of XCP-ng and XO.
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@danp said in XCP-ng pricing:
Looks like Olivier is still wanting to go with per host pricing.
Just means it's not supported in the SMB market, is all.
That survey makes no sense and basically tells me they aren't even going to talk to customers, let alone listen. The decision is made and they are using the survey to pretend to have looked into it.
Which literally means the community version is the only real option, albeit with community support.
Yes, absolutely. The product will have to be absurdly expensive for the SMB market to have any hopes of making money in the SME market. The only way for that model to work is to price for companies that fit into a middle ground and are not in a position to skew their support purchases to game the pricing model.
-
Would something like this be a reasonable way of pricing XCP-ng?
Screenshot from Proxmox Subscription Pricing website.
Proxmox subscriptions are licensed per physical server and CPU socket.
-
@black3dynamite said in XCP-ng pricing:
Would something like this be a reasonable way of pricing XCP-ng?
Screenshot from Proxmox Subscription Pricing website.
Proxmox subscriptions are licensed per physical server and CPU socket.Is there a link that shows what support they are planning to provide, what it includes, and if there are any different levels of support?
It's really hard to imagine pricing of some support service I don't know anything about.
-
Is the pricing by CPU or socket or populated socket? Those are three different metrics.
A socket may or may not have a chip in it. A chip may have one or more CPUs on it. Rare to do that, but calling something a CPU socket is very confusing as chip carriers go in sockets, not chips themselves.
