XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective
-
@scottalanmiller HSBC is the vendor right?
-
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@DustinB3403 said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
The value of support is only worthwhile if I don't have to install it myself. From there all support goes out the window and falls to the community to help with.
I totally understand what you're saying, but it's impossible to evaluate supports worthiness when there is community support as well.
So you're saying that you find zero value in support from the vendor?
When I buy something like Veeam, vendor support is one of the most valuable things I feel that I get. Sure I might not use it much, but when shit hits the fan, the ability to get help fast from those that know the product is awesome.That said, I continue to be amazed at how mostly fast I can get help from community forums, but they are often still slower than direct support from the vendor, but this does not preclude a fees times where the forums where faster.
I've essentially never used vendor support. I've never used it from any operating system, platform, storage, backup or enterprise app vendor. Hardware, yes of course, there is no way around that. It wasn't until being in Spiceworks that even realized how people could use those vendors. As the IT guy, I was always led to believe that knowing the product and fixing it was my job since the non-IT people could just engage the vendor if that's what they were going to do.
I agree that having that support option is really valuable, but gauging its value can be tough. What IS the value of a service that I can pretty safely say there is zero chance I will use?
You've said this before, and for you, I don't find this overly surprising, but for us mere mortals, I know that I start by opening a call to a vendor for support, and while they are helping me (they are the specialists in this software/thing - right?) I am also doing my own research trying to fix the issue.
I suppose perhaps some would say I've possibly wasted a few minutes setting up the call with the vendor, especially if I find the answer quickly, but in the cases where I have called, it's pretty rare that I find a solution first.
But then let me ask... what's your role? Why were you needed in this case? If the support is going to come from the vendor, why not just use the vendor?
Who's going to call the vendor and work the problem from the client side?
Secretary? Receptionist?
They are busy doing those jobs. and I'm an internal employee - it's my job to handle these calls.
The vendor along can't work on your systems, unless you have an agreement in place that basically says - you call them, they remote in and take care of things.
-
@DustinB3403 said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller HSBC is the vendor right?
I don't follow.
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@DustinB3403 said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
The value of support is only worthwhile if I don't have to install it myself. From there all support goes out the window and falls to the community to help with.
I totally understand what you're saying, but it's impossible to evaluate supports worthiness when there is community support as well.
So you're saying that you find zero value in support from the vendor?
When I buy something like Veeam, vendor support is one of the most valuable things I feel that I get. Sure I might not use it much, but when shit hits the fan, the ability to get help fast from those that know the product is awesome.That said, I continue to be amazed at how mostly fast I can get help from community forums, but they are often still slower than direct support from the vendor, but this does not preclude a fees times where the forums where faster.
I've essentially never used vendor support. I've never used it from any operating system, platform, storage, backup or enterprise app vendor. Hardware, yes of course, there is no way around that. It wasn't until being in Spiceworks that even realized how people could use those vendors. As the IT guy, I was always led to believe that knowing the product and fixing it was my job since the non-IT people could just engage the vendor if that's what they were going to do.
I agree that having that support option is really valuable, but gauging its value can be tough. What IS the value of a service that I can pretty safely say there is zero chance I will use?
You've said this before, and for you, I don't find this overly surprising, but for us mere mortals, I know that I start by opening a call to a vendor for support, and while they are helping me (they are the specialists in this software/thing - right?) I am also doing my own research trying to fix the issue.
I suppose perhaps some would say I've possibly wasted a few minutes setting up the call with the vendor, especially if I find the answer quickly, but in the cases where I have called, it's pretty rare that I find a solution first.
But then let me ask... what's your role? Why were you needed in this case? If the support is going to come from the vendor, why not just use the vendor?
Who's going to call the vendor and work the problem from the client side?
Secretary? Receptionist?
They are busy doing those jobs. and I'm an internal employee - it's my job to handle these calls.
The vendor along can't work on your systems, unless you have an agreement in place that basically says - you call them, they remote in and take care of things.
But those are clearly the things are you expecting them to do. To handle it for you.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@DustinB3403 said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller HSBC is the vendor right?
I don't follow.
Nevermind.
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
They are busy doing those jobs. and I'm an internal employee - it's my job to handle these calls.
Right, but are you needed if a secretary could do it instead? They are busy doing "those" jobs, then why are you doing that job for them? Calling a vendor to schedule work is normally considered a secretarial job. In the way that you describe the use, at least.
Given that you HAVE an idle internal person and the secretaries are busy, it makes sense that you are taking their offload. I'm not saying that that doesn't make sense. What I'm asking is - why not just have enough secretaries for far less money?
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
The vendor along can't work on your systems, unless you have an agreement in place that basically says - you call them, they remote in and take care of things.
Why not? It's not an IT task to grant access to systems. Once installed, this would be a simple matter of permission. Like with Scale, you call, they give you a code, you type it in, done. No IT needed if you just want the vendor to support you. Same with any Linux system, just pop in a support command for your vendor, done.
-
What's more, support possibilities with XOA could be built.
Bronze we'll get to you in 4 hours during normal business hours
Silver we'll get to you in 2 hours during normal business hours
Gold we'll get to you under 2 hours 24/7
Platinum we'll get to you within the hour 24/7All of which could be managed with a remote support utility as being discussed now.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
They are busy doing those jobs. and I'm an internal employee - it's my job to handle these calls.
Right, but are you needed if a secretary could do it instead? They are busy doing "those" jobs, then why are you doing that job for them? Calling a vendor to schedule work is normally considered a secretarial job. In the way that you describe the use, at least.
Given that you HAVE an idle internal person and the secretaries are busy, it makes sense that you are taking their offload. I'm not saying that that doesn't make sense. What I'm asking is - why not just have enough secretaries for far less money?
Well - then what good does support really do - you seem to be implying that vendor support is pointless, because if you have another avenue to support that is less expensive, then vendor support is pointless.
Let's talk about a specific product - XOA. I buy XOA, you expect what? The IT pro to scour forums, reading whitepapers, error reports, etc - and NEVER call into XOA for support, even though I paid for it? That seems like you are leaving a resource on the table.
I'm not saying that the IT person doesn't scour forums, read whitepapers, error reports, etc. Not saying that. I'm saying that calling Support is just one more tool in the box.
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
They are busy doing those jobs. and I'm an internal employee - it's my job to handle these calls.
Right, but are you needed if a secretary could do it instead? They are busy doing "those" jobs, then why are you doing that job for them? Calling a vendor to schedule work is normally considered a secretarial job. In the way that you describe the use, at least.
Given that you HAVE an idle internal person and the secretaries are busy, it makes sense that you are taking their offload. I'm not saying that that doesn't make sense. What I'm asking is - why not just have enough secretaries for far less money?
Well - then what good does support really do - you seem to be implying that vendor support is pointless, because if you have another avenue to support that is less expensive, then vendor support is pointless.
Let's talk about a specific product - XOA. I buy XOA, you expect what? The IT pro to scour forums, reading whitepapers, error reports, etc - and NEVER call into XOA for support, even though I paid for it? That seems like you are leaving a resource on the table.
I'm not saying that the IT person doesn't scour forums, read whitepapers, error reports, etc. Not saying that. I'm saying that calling Support is just one more tool in the box.
But what you are saying for things that aren't support issues (ie my backup failed) that you should still call support to have them investigate it.
There are somethings that you are responsible for. The code its self and updates shouldn't be one of them though.
-
@DustinB3403 said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
But what you are saying for things that aren't support issues (ie my backup failed) that you should still call support to have them investigate it.
This is a good one - Originally I was going to say I didn't say that. But I guess I really did. Frankly this is where you put your IT pants on.
For a single failed backup, I'd do some personal research first, but if after an hour, perhaps less, I couldn't realize why it was failing, and I have support - hell yah I'm going to call. Because now I'm potentially wasting time trying to find the solution alone, when I could have a team of experts helping me find a solution.How is this after different than posting on a forum? Really? I see a problem, OMG shit's broke, I don't know the instant fix - make a posting on ML, then start digging around the interwebs trying to fix the problem.
instead of posting to ML, I'm just saying that if a support contract is in place, why wouldn't I use it?
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
instead of posting to ML, I'm just saying that if a support contract is in place, why wouldn't I use it?
Because your support contract likely has a limit on the number of tickets you are allotted before an additional per ticket fee occurs.
Its the same reason @olivier doesn't want to work with SMB's. He has to develop the product, not dick around with likely trivial issues.
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
Let's talk about a specific product - XOA. I buy XOA, you expect what? The IT pro to scour forums, reading whitepapers, error reports, etc - and NEVER call into XOA for support, even though I paid for it? That seems like you are leaving a resource on the table.
Maybe it is an odd expectation, but I've always assumed my IT teams would know how to support the products run in production that we depend on and that calling support should take more time than it was worth. I'm also from a world where anything you CAN fix wasn't the vendors responsibility, because that isn't support but doing the customer's job for them, they are literally becoming the internal IT team at that point.
This is why I rarely buy support for internal use, outside of hardware. And this is why Microsoft works for most people, since their products don't come with support. If you don't need support for Windows, why do you need it for XO which is dramatically simpler and less critical? The advantage to having IT able to support everything, is that you get way more flexibility and don't need the huge cost and overhead of paying for support.
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
I'm not saying that the IT person doesn't scour forums, read whitepapers, error reports, etc. Not saying that. I'm saying that calling Support is just one more tool in the box.
I agree... once you are in that position of having bought support.
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
instead of posting to ML, I'm just saying that if a support contract is in place, why wouldn't I use it?
My point there isn't that "if you have support you should use it" because obviously that makes sense.
My point is... if you have that kind of support contract, why do you also have an IT person internally? Or if you have the IT people to do support, why pay for vendor support? It's double paying for the same stuff at that point for the company.
As a non-IT person looking at it, it seems crazy to pay for the same support twice.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
I'm not saying that the IT person doesn't scour forums, read whitepapers, error reports, etc. Not saying that. I'm saying that calling Support is just one more tool in the box.
I agree... once you are in that position of having bought support.
thanks - I think.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
Let's talk about a specific product - XOA. I buy XOA, you expect what? The IT pro to scour forums, reading whitepapers, error reports, etc - and NEVER call into XOA for support, even though I paid for it? That seems like you are leaving a resource on the table.
Maybe it is an odd expectation, but I've always assumed my IT teams would know how to support the products run in production that we depend on and that calling support should take more time than it was worth. I'm also from a world where anything you CAN fix wasn't the vendors responsibility, because that isn't support but doing the customer's job for them, they are literally becoming the internal IT team at that point.
This is why I rarely buy support for internal use, outside of hardware. And this is why Microsoft works for most people, since their products don't come with support. If you don't need support for Windows, why do you need it for XO which is dramatically simpler and less critical? The advantage to having IT able to support everything, is that you get way more flexibility and don't need the huge cost and overhead of paying for support.
Then I'm a bit confused about this whole thread - if the support itself is in general of so little value, then perhaps the pricing for XOA that includes XOSAN is really more about the cost of XOSAN.
Now that said, now that things like StarWinds is free, the value proposition of XOSAN is significantly lower, assuming you can move to another platform, like Hyper-V. -
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
I'm not saying that the IT person doesn't scour forums, read whitepapers, error reports, etc. Not saying that. I'm saying that calling Support is just one more tool in the box.
I agree... once you are in that position of having bought support.
thanks - I think.
You are questioning what to do "given where you are." I'm questioning "why get into that situation."
-
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
Now that said, now that things like StarWinds is free, the value proposition of XOSAN is significantly lower, assuming you can move to another platform, like Hyper-V.
Right, and if someone makes an XO like management web tool for Hyper-V, XO is dead. The hypervisor is basically interchangeable. It's the ecosystem that matters. And once you have what you need on another free system, XO has no purpose.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@scottalanmiller said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
@Dashrender said in XOA Pricing Model - What might it look like from a US perspective:
I'm not saying that the IT person doesn't scour forums, read whitepapers, error reports, etc. Not saying that. I'm saying that calling Support is just one more tool in the box.
I agree... once you are in that position of having bought support.
thanks - I think.
You are questioning what to do "given where you are." I'm questioning "why get into that situation."
I was questioning that I think you finally agreed that if it's a tool in your box, that you can and maybe should use it.
As for why get into the situation - well you said you don't buy support when you can avoid it (other than hardware). OK - But can you buy Veeam and keep current with the updates and not buy support? Veeam is just an example.
I know, as you pointed out, that you can buy Windows, and it does not come with support, so sure, don't buy it, use your IT pants to get the job done.
