[Poll] Raise the LES monthly price limit on dedicated servers to $99 a month ?

FrankZ

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well. As monthly price limits are a basic founding principal of our low end community, we wanted to see what the community's feeling were on raising the dedicated server monthly price limit from $70 to $99 a month.

So it is poll time. Please give us your opinions on this subject below, but don't forget to vote.

Voting will close on July 13th at 11:59 EDT

AuroraZero

If the prices are raised we may be able to pull in new hosts and diversify a bit. The cost of everything is still rising and it makes sense that the allowable limit should follow.

I say let the market here regulate itself a bit and see where it falls. Some providers may be able to provide it cheaper but others may not be able. This way both are able to be included and the consumer makes the decision.

That is just my opinion though and should not be a real influence on the decision.

Flying_Chinaman

$99 $99 $99

Chinaman could not afford $70 nor $90 anyway

yoursunny

$996/month would be a good number.
GPU servers will be possible at that price.

Not_Oles

Thanks @FrankZ for conducting the survey. My guess is that @Mason probably had some involvement, so thanks to him too. I'm always looking at the server ads. Maybe increasing the price limit might bring us better servers. That would be great!

bikegremlin

I'd say either lower it to $69 (wink wink nudge nudge), or raise it to $100.

The "99.99" prices are a cunt move.

The same goes for colo prices.

Chievo

100 USD ! Would get new players in the game. We need fresh blood here and being different is better in my personal opinion.

More options. Better for the people. Better servers.better for everybody

Jab

I am too poor to afford a dedi - should I vote no so you can all suffer with me or vote yes so I can suffer more that there is this amazing shit that I can't afford?

1 vote for "I don't care, I am too poor"

bikegremlin

“For just $0.99, LES will provide you with a receipt that will match what you told your wife you are paying for the idlers…”

skorous

@Chievo said:
100 USD ! Would get new players in the game.

Would it? If this change allowed a player to now post offers that couldn't before they would have to have no product less than $70/mo, right? So what we're saying is that Low End Spirit is actively courting people that don't support the low end?
I see it being great for Radi for sure since he's always got offers he'd love to post but can't. I'm not sure I see new players.

Chievo

@skorous said:

@Chievo said:
100 USD ! Would get new players in the game.

Would it? If this change allowed a player to now post offers that couldn't before they would have to have no product less than $70/mo, right? So what we're saying is that Low End Spirit is actively courting people that don't support the low end?
I see it being great for Radi for sure since he's always got offers he'd love to post but can't. I'm not sure I see new players.

Well more options better. Some freedom of higher pricing would be beneficial. I mean they could post their offers if someone wants them. He would be free to purchase them. I guess that higher the pricing less users would buy them, but for some people could be beneficial. I mean providers and users at the same time.

bikegremlin

@skorous said:

@Chievo said:
100 USD ! Would get new players in the game.

Would it? If this change allowed a player to now post offers that couldn't before they would have to have no product less than $70/mo, right? So what we're saying is that Low End Spirit is actively courting people that don't support the low end?
I see it being great for Radi for sure since he's always got offers he'd love to post but can't. I'm not sure I see new players.

I think I understand your point of view. My thoughts, written down, and using some analogies:

Would you like a bicycle in a rideable condition for just $69? I could sell you one. It won't be very good, won't stay in a rideable condition for long, but it will work. Is that a good bargain?

Now, how about an expensive, $500 bicycle? If I sold either my commuter or my gravel bike at that price, I'd be at a loss (at least financially). Either of those bikes was built to be durable, reliable, and easy & cheap to repair. Those parts (and frames) cost. So, at $500 per bike, it would be a loss-leader, making sense only if I truly want to help you out, or to gain a customer for future profit (one not excluding the other).

Do you see what I mean?
Raising the limits (for all, not just for the dedi offers) could allow for some better deals, in terms of "bang for the buck," even if their nominal price is higher. Of course, as you said, it could also allow for just more expensive stuff (with higher profit margins). As well as for everything in between the two extremes.

Digression
I see no way of filtering the great deal offers from the poor deal ones using any hard set rules (it would take a lot of thought, brainstorming and could still amount to nothing). I'm also not sure if that should be filtered arbitrarily by the mods, as that would be a huge time-sink. So just raising the price limits and letting the members decide, as customers, voting with their wallets, sounds like an OK idea.

In my country, in the 90s, the government put a limit on many prices (milk, sugar, petrol...). And you couldn't buy those. If you wanted to, you had to pay a lot higher price in the black market, as no one would sell you at the limited price, as it was a net-loss for them. We are now facing an inflation (not as bad as the 90s Serbia, fortunately), and prices are going up.

It's capitalism, it sucks, but LES is not big enough to change global policies or prices.

selalumenang

what?
we are going high end now? highendspirit

skorous

@bikegremlin said: I think I understand your point of view. My thoughts, written down, and using some analogies:

Would you like a bicycle in a rideable condition for just $69? I could sell you one. It won't be very good, won't stay in a rideable condition for long, but it will work. Is that a good bargain?

Now, how about an expensive, $500 bicycle? If I sold either my commuter or my gravel bike at that price, I'd be at a loss (at least financially). Either of those bikes was built to be durable, reliable, and easy & cheap to repair. Those parts (and frames) cost. So, at $500 per bike, it would be a loss-leader, making sense only if I truly want to help you out, or to gain a customer for future profit (one not excluding the other).

Not really apples-to-apples since these were servers and thus the higher end bike you're alluding to already plus electronics don't break down the same way as bicycles but let's try a slightly different view of your analogy.

You live in an low end Detroit neighborhood. It's not poverty stricken but the average car is a ten year old domestic and people work long hours to make ends meet. Your local neighborhood bike shop, "Cheap Azz Bikes", has always had workable bikes in various configurations including some mid-end models from a couple model years ago. One day they put a big sign outside "NEW MODELS IN HOUSE" so you stop in to see what's up. Looking around you find a bunch of e-Bikes, some beautiful racing bikes at 20% under market, and oddly a couple Royal Enfield motorcycles - none of which you would consider "Cheap Azz". Confused you ask the owner what's up and he says, "Well, some sales reps had been being excluded because they were more than we were willing to pay but these seemed like pretty good deals so we figured we'd try and diversify a bit." Walking out of the store you see a suggestion box so you write "Change the name" and drop it in.

Do you see what I mean?
Raising the limits (for all, not just for the dedi offers) could allow for some better deals, in terms of "bang for the buck," even if their nominal price is higher. Of course, as you said, it could also allow for just more expensive stuff (with higher profit margins). As well as for everything in between the two extremes.

I see what you mean. Don't necessarily agree with all of it but I get you. To be clear, I voted a very weak "yes" because of inflation is making things more expensive of late. I just felt the argument that it'd allow a rush of new vendors was faulty and needed to be addressed.

bikegremlin

@skorous said:

@bikegremlin said: I think I understand your point of view. My thoughts, written down, and using some analogies:

Would you like a bicycle in a rideable condition for just $69? I could sell you one. It won't be very good, won't stay in a rideable condition for long, but it will work. Is that a good bargain?

Now, how about an expensive, $500 bicycle? If I sold either my commuter or my gravel bike at that price, I'd be at a loss (at least financially). Either of those bikes was built to be durable, reliable, and easy & cheap to repair. Those parts (and frames) cost. So, at $500 per bike, it would be a loss-leader, making sense only if I truly want to help you out, or to gain a customer for future profit (one not excluding the other).

Not really apples-to-apples since these were servers and thus the higher end bike you're alluding to already plus electronics don't break down the same way as bicycles but let's try a slightly different view of your analogy.

You live in an low end Detroit neighborhood. It's not poverty stricken but the average car is a ten year old domestic and people work long hours to make ends meet. Your local neighborhood bike shop, "Cheap Azz Bikes", has always had workable bikes in various configurations including some mid-end models from a couple model years ago. One day they put a big sign outside "NEW MODELS IN HOUSE" so you stop in to see what's up. Looking around you find a bunch of e-Bikes, some beautiful racing bikes at 20% under market, and oddly a couple Royal Enfield motorcycles - none of which you would consider "Cheap Azz". Confused you ask the owner what's up and he says, "Well, some sales reps had been being excluded because they were more than we were willing to pay but these seemed like pretty good deals so we figured we'd try and diversify a bit." Walking out of the store you see a suggestion box so you write "Change the name" and drop it in.

Do you see what I mean?
Raising the limits (for all, not just for the dedi offers) could allow for some better deals, in terms of "bang for the buck," even if their nominal price is higher. Of course, as you said, it could also allow for just more expensive stuff (with higher profit margins). As well as for everything in between the two extremes.

I see what you mean. Don't necessarily agree with all of it but I get you. To be clear, I voted a very weak "yes" because of inflation is making things more expensive of late. I just felt the argument that it'd allow a rush of new vendors was faulty and needed to be addressed.

I see your point - and I think that is also a valid way of looking at it.

I tried to address that in my first reply:
There is no way to tell if something is a great deal, or a very poor deal by looking at the price alone. That is what it boils down to.
Here, we're only dealing with the max. price limits, not with the value provided for those.
As that English saying goes: "I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff."

A potential problem I see is, due to inflation, if we keep the existing price limits, we might end up with "lemons" only, just to satisfy the price limit.
If we raise them - then we could get expensive stuff, but we could also get good deals (great value for the money).

skorous

@bikegremlin said:

@skorous said:

@bikegremlin said: I think I understand your point of view. My thoughts, written down, and using some analogies:

Would you like a bicycle in a rideable condition for just $69? I could sell you one. It won't be very good, won't stay in a rideable condition for long, but it will work. Is that a good bargain?

Now, how about an expensive, $500 bicycle? If I sold either my commuter or my gravel bike at that price, I'd be at a loss (at least financially). Either of those bikes was built to be durable, reliable, and easy & cheap to repair. Those parts (and frames) cost. So, at $500 per bike, it would be a loss-leader, making sense only if I truly want to help you out, or to gain a customer for future profit (one not excluding the other).

Not really apples-to-apples since these were servers and thus the higher end bike you're alluding to already plus electronics don't break down the same way as bicycles but let's try a slightly different view of your analogy.

You live in an low end Detroit neighborhood. It's not poverty stricken but the average car is a ten year old domestic and people work long hours to make ends meet. Your local neighborhood bike shop, "Cheap Azz Bikes", has always had workable bikes in various configurations including some mid-end models from a couple model years ago. One day they put a big sign outside "NEW MODELS IN HOUSE" so you stop in to see what's up. Looking around you find a bunch of e-Bikes, some beautiful racing bikes at 20% under market, and oddly a couple Royal Enfield motorcycles - none of which you would consider "Cheap Azz". Confused you ask the owner what's up and he says, "Well, some sales reps had been being excluded because they were more than we were willing to pay but these seemed like pretty good deals so we figured we'd try and diversify a bit." Walking out of the store you see a suggestion box so you write "Change the name" and drop it in.

Do you see what I mean?
Raising the limits (for all, not just for the dedi offers) could allow for some better deals, in terms of "bang for the buck," even if their nominal price is higher. Of course, as you said, it could also allow for just more expensive stuff (with higher profit margins). As well as for everything in between the two extremes.

I see what you mean. Don't necessarily agree with all of it but I get you. To be clear, I voted a very weak "yes" because of inflation is making things more expensive of late. I just felt the argument that it'd allow a rush of new vendors was faulty and needed to be addressed.

I see your point - and I think that is also a valid way of looking at it.

I tried to address that in my first reply:
There is no way to tell if something is a great deal, or a very poor deal by looking at the price alone. That is what it boils down to.
Here, we're only dealing with the max. price limits, not with the value provided for those.
As that English saying goes: "I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff."

I think that's where we're viewing it differently ... "There is no way to tell if something is a great deal, or a very poor deal by looking at the price alone." is a true statement but you can tell if it's a Low End deal by price alone which is, at least ostensibly, part of our charter. Just my opinion obviously.

A potential problem I see is, due to inflation, if we keep the existing price limits, we might end up with "lemons" only, just to satisfy the price limit.
If we raise them - then we could get expensive stuff, but we could also get good deals (great value for the money).

Agreed on all points.

FrankZ

I did not want to say much at the start, because this thread is about getting the community members opinions on raising the dedi limits a little. But I see the topic veering off a bit, so maybe a little clarification is required.

We are Low End Spirit, and I expect that there is no chance of LES turning into high end anything.

That said, dedicated servers in Asia and some other parts of the world just don't get offered here much at under $70. If the limit was raised a little, sure we might get some bigger, or more modern, dedi offers from lower cost areas like the USA, or Europe, but my real hope would be that LES would also get a few dedi offers from places like Singapore, or India, or Brazil, that we are not getting now. From what I have seen $99 a month in these areas is still really low end.

skorous

@FrankZ said:
I did not want to say much at the start, because this thread is about getting the community members opinions on raising the dedi limits a little. But I see the topic veering off a bit, so maybe a little clarification is required.

We are Low End Spirit, and I expect that there is no chance of LES turning into high end anything.

That said, dedicated servers in Asia and some other parts of the world just don't get offered here much at under $70. If the limit was raised a little, sure we might get some bigger, or more modern, dedi offers from lower cost areas like the USA, or Europe, but my real hope would be that LES would also get a few dedi offers from places like Singapore, or India, or Brazil, that we are not getting now. From what I have seen $99 a month in these areas is still really low end.

Sorry, like herdin' cats .. I know I especially am hard to keep on topic.

OOOOooohhhhh .... Okay, now I'm with you. Given that context I feel much better about my 'yes' vote.

AlwaysSkint

I still grieve at the discontinuation of a true LES dedicated server, at an Unreal price:

Promotional Code: BLACK - 50.00% Recurring Discount $-12.50 USD
Dual Quad Xeon 5420 - NANA (11/24/2017 - 12/23/2017) $25.00 USD
Ram:: 8 GB Ram (Default)
Primary Hard Drive:: 500 GB HDD (Default)
2nd Hard Drive:: None
IPv4:: /29 (5 Usable) (Default)
Operating System:: ProxMox 5
Bandwidth:: 20TB Monthly
Control Panel: None

Nobody has come close, even at non-BF prices, apart from a lesser spec. WSI one. Not everyone needs/wants/can afford the latest & greatest. Right sizing! The now defunct Arm-based SYS servers were a prime candidate for this mentality, though the cheapo Atom-based offerings are kinda meh, for want of a better (polite) expression. Dual storage SSD+HDD offerings are much appreciated, though seem too geared to storage purposes. Supply & Demand, I guess.

Personally, I'd set the limit at $50/month, keeping with the LES doctrine.

FrankZ

Going to continue to let this run a while longer so everyone's vote gets counted.

Neoon

No, as long as OVH doesen't deadpool and they continue to drop cheap deals.

FrankZ

Thank you everyone for taking the time to vote on this issue.
The poll is now closed with 92 votes, 62 for, 30 against.

/thread