Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2003

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 48201
interpreted = N
texte = I can certainly see SMSI's side on this issue and yet it does seem unfair that I should have to pay for virtual machine names on one box forwww.mydomain.com andsecure.mydomain.comI think a reasonable compromise would be to sell the domain packs in sets of 5 licenses, with the first 5 licenses figured in, with the cost being $100 for a 5 license pack, and maybe a sliding scale discount for large volumes, so that 100 licenses might be $900 for instance and so on.That way, a reasonable set of machine names in a domain are covered, and we don't feel like we're being nickel and dimed to death.*Marketing note to SMSI: People hate feeling like they're being nickel and dimed to death...On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 10:17 PM, Clement Ross wrote:> Yup, per sub-domain does not make sense.>> For each and every client we usually have:>> domain.com> www.domain.com> secure.domain.com> and sometimes store.domain.com>> All pointing to the save directory.>> It should be like when we register the domain name, the client pays > once for> domain.com but does not pay anything for www.domain.com.>> If you do it this way, you will obviously have some people that will > abuse> the license by doing something like that: client1.isp.com,> store.client.isp.com. So they wont have to pay any additional 50$ but i> think this would be a very small minority.>> Clem.>> Donovan wrote:>>>> Phillip Bonesteele wrote:>> [snip]>>>> Philip,>> Here is the thing I'm most frustrated with. The non-distinction >> between>> hosts (sub-domains) and domains. I understand that SM is trying to >> offer>> a cheaper entry point. I think this is a good idea. However, please>> consider the>> following; please allow a single license to include sub-domains.>>>> Hosts (sub-domains) have always been a feature that one has complete>> ownership over once>> they buy a domain. It is frustrating to know that if one owns:>> surfing.com that>> one will have to pay extra for creating:>>>> www.surfing.com>> dev.surfing.com>> secure.surfing.com>>>> I might be sold on a per domain system but I will not on a per>> sub-domain system.>> Please reconsider adding allowing hosts.>>>> Sincerely,>> Donovan>>>> -->> -Donovan Brooke>> -Administrator of IT />> -Assc. Art Director>> -Creative Services>> -Epsen Hillmer Graphics>>>> -402.342.1169 X297>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/>>--Will StarckNovaDerm Skincare Sciencehttp://www.novaderm.comwjs@novaderm.com-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Clint Davis 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Jim Lanford 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Paul Willis 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (WJ Starck 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Clement Ross 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Donovan 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Kimberly D. Walls 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (John Peacock 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Donovan 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Nitai @ ComputerOil 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Paul Uttermohlen 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Donovan 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Alex McCombie 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Nitai @ ComputerOil 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Donovan 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Brian Fries 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Bob Minor 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Jesse Williams-Proudman 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Phillip Bonesteele 2003)
Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (WJ Starck 2003)
Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating (Phillip Bonesteele 2003)

I can certainly see SMSI's side on this issue and yet it does seem unfair that I should have to pay for virtual machine names on one box forwww.mydomain.com andsecure.mydomain.comI think a reasonable compromise would be to sell the domain packs in sets of 5 licenses, with the first 5 licenses figured in, with the cost being $100 for a 5 license pack, and maybe a sliding scale discount for large volumes, so that 100 licenses might be $900 for instance and so on.That way, a reasonable set of machine names in a domain are covered, and we don't feel like we're being nickel and dimed to death.*Marketing note to SMSI: People hate feeling like they're being nickel and dimed to death...On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 10:17 PM, Clement Ross wrote:> Yup, per sub-domain does not make sense.>> For each and every client we usually have:>> domain.com> www.domain.com> secure.domain.com> and sometimes store.domain.com>> All pointing to the save directory.>> It should be like when we register the domain name, the client pays > once for> domain.com but does not pay anything for www.domain.com.>> If you do it this way, you will obviously have some people that will > abuse> the license by doing something like that: client1.isp.com,> store.client.isp.com. So they wont have to pay any additional 50$ but i> think this would be a very small minority.>> Clem.>> Donovan wrote:>>>> Phillip Bonesteele wrote:>> [snip]>>>> Philip,>> Here is the thing I'm most frustrated with. The non-distinction >> between>> hosts (sub-domains) and domains. I understand that SM is trying to >> offer>> a cheaper entry point. I think this is a good idea. However, please>> consider the>> following; please allow a single license to include sub-domains.>>>> Hosts (sub-domains) have always been a feature that one has complete>> ownership over once>> they buy a domain. It is frustrating to know that if one owns:>> surfing.com that>> one will have to pay extra for creating:>>>> www.surfing.com>> dev.surfing.com>> secure.surfing.com>>>> I might be sold on a per domain system but I will not on a per>> sub-domain system.>> Please reconsider adding allowing hosts.>>>> Sincerely,>> Donovan>>>> -->> -Donovan Brooke>> -Administrator of IT />> -Assc. Art Director>> -Creative Services>> -Epsen Hillmer Graphics>>>> -402.342.1169 X297>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/>>--Will StarckNovaDerm Skincare Sciencehttp://www.novaderm.comwjs@novaderm.com-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ WJ Starck

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: Was 5.0 Pricing, now Sandbox versus Website and ruminating

2003

Top Articles:

Related Readings: