New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
doesn't look lowend .
That is usually a compliment in real life.
@ditlev Have you considered matching the features of the software used in let to offer a more competitive package? Perhaps you could offer the extra features like an additional cost and the basic package per vm cost based on a ratio of the average vps lease prices, so that onapp let providers can also be competitive. You currently have ovh, buyvm, linode, lightsail, contabo, all using their own panels, because they can afford to pay a development team to stay competitive within many other things.
Let me ask you this:
Say you wanted to match these guys:
They are all pretty much the same price at $5/mo for a 1GB VM...and yes, they are using their own panels.
If you wanted to match those prices, but use OnApp, pure NVME and latest-gen hardware; what margin (your all-in cost minus retail price) would you need to be at for this to make sense to you?
D
Ugh, just stop TJ. Geez. Negativity and criticism rarely helps, especially when you speak from ignorance.
So it seems LET's are generally at very low margins (or not to bothered with margins):
https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3210129
Due to market size in my country, a 50% - 60% margin would be reasonable for unmanaged. But there are already providers with owned cp offering prices for 1Gb ram, 1vcpu at $ 3 or 3.5 / month, I think the average price should be that and not 5 usd. So, if it is a new project, what would be the difference of using onapp, if we offer similar features, at a higher cost or perhaps the same, but surely with a greater oversold, therefore, higher costs of administration, hardware, etc. I think there would be no disruption, it would be ideal if they could consider that, that onapp helps companies let be disruptive, you know how slicehost or digitalocean more recently. (But it's true, it's complex)
Just dropped:
As predicted - crap. Resell OnApp bla bla bla.
Interesting, but not a fan of having to put credit card details in to trial a free beta invite.
isn't that the old cloud.net offering except the use your own hardware?
As expected, just another meh
After checking the pricing I had to look at my calendar to see if it's April 1st already.
Not quite, let me just give a little more context
With cloud.net one now has access to create their cloud with OnApp by simply presenting their own bare metal servers to the CP that is provided as a service from cloud.net, we lowered the barrier to ensure that providers can use the OnApp toolstack with a entry point of only $50, and we even host the CP free of charge, the amount is 100% towards licensing of the hardware being managed, we have come up with a new license model as well (RAM) to better follow the structure on how providers can price their own offering, therefore making it easier to understand and plan the charges.
We have also worked to ensure that adding your bare metal servers to become cloud infrastructure is simplified, with new wizards as well as simplifying the process of adding users and creating plans.
Now on addition to that, for clients who are capex constraints and wish to be able to start selling VM's quickly but have no infrastructure of their own, we announced a new marketplace tier that one can consume 1GB VM's for $4
So two different paths to market, or a combination of both, but the objective was to re-focus on the service provider, drop barriers and provide them with a way to offer OnApp at a pricepoint that they can afford.
Carlos
OnApp
Credit card required even just to see the UI ... I'll pass ...
Compute options:
Use your own servers for compute: up to 50GB RAM is free of charge during your trial. Anything above that will be charged at $1 per GB RAM per month
Use our compute marketplace: this is charged from $4 per VM per month
--
Hell no. @ditlev 100% sure this won't work for this market. Ridiculously expensive, plus, not self-hosted. It just doesn't make sense. Best luck with it.
I understand your sentiment, and we struggled with this one, but with open access to the marketplace and ability to quickly deploy a cloud environment to then host whatever one desires, we had to put it in to validade the user and fence out possible problems.
Thanks
Cloud.net is for those that want to have an instant cloud setup with access to world wide infrastructure on tap, and the ability to mix it with their own on-prem servers. It's complete no-capex cloud setup that can be ready within minutes.
We have 100's of service providers that will happily continue with their large on-premise OnApp deployments. Though, we also turn down many boutique providers that could really use a platform like ours, but that would not be able to live with the minimum monthly fees, the capex related to servers and the ongoing management of the platform. Cloud.net is perfect for those guys.
Pricing will not (never ever) work for everyone, and perhaps it won't for you - but it's significantly easier and cheaper to get started with cloud.net than it is with OnApp core platform. But ya, possibly still too expensive.
An this is not a potential replacement for SolusVM.
It's a very different offering here - that would be like comparing Magento (solusVM) with Shopify (cloud.net)
We expect the usage patterns to be very different with Cloud.net - I think most service providers would use a mix of their own and federated infrastructure at cloud.net.
Oh, and
I hate that too, but with access to 1000's of servers on tap through the marketplace we need to have a CC before letting you in.
If you'd like to see the UI I suggest you check out this video that Carlos did earlier: https://cloud.net/cloud-net-video-walkthrough-to-first-vm/
D
We taught you will give us an alternative of Solusvm or Openstack..
It's better if you charge us per core basis.. or at least something like $50/$60 per node so we can use our servers
But that's $1/gb RAM is not for us at least.
Each our server has 256 to 512GB ram each so it's not beneficial for us
Hope @ditlev will remove us from their mailing list soon as we don't want to see a demo about "How to resell"
@ditlev Presume that pricing is per ram in the pool, vs ram sold as VMs? For example, if we add a server with 256GB RAM it'll cost us off the bat, $256?
Yep
The world does not need another SolusVM
OnApp core platform is per core, but starts at +$1000/mo. And requires tons of additional investments in hardware, setup etc. Cloud.net is instantly setup, works right away and is $50/mo.
It's not for everyone, but it's a fairly low entry barrier compared with everything else we've done in the past.
Not sure if you've activated yet, but if you have you're on a list and if so you just need to click the unsub link in the first mail you get from us
That $256 per hypervisor is a problem, that's thousands of dollars per month already in fees for someone like us with 256GB hypervisors (soon to be 512GB), which is why it's a non-starter in terms of us to moving from Openstack/Ceph.
Shame, the idea of having it hosted and just running playbooks(?) against our hardware is a good one, we were thinking about doing a similar service for OSA.
Thanks for your feedback Nick - sure, this may not work for everyone. How many cores do you have per hypervisor, ie. whats the core:ram ratio?
We feel the shopification of cloudplatforms will happen and while cloud.net is still rough around the edges we feel it's the way the industry will move. We expect a lot of the usage will be from the federated VM's, and not only through on-prem rambased fees from hypervisors.
D
In my opinion (strictly talking about on-prem), this product doesn't make any sense for anyone that plans to grow to more than a node or two, and who would lock themselves in to a platform that charges $1/mo per GB RAM? It looks like you just pay more to get less features compared to OnApp?
Your official OnApp pricing from your chat bot is $1,200/mo for the first 100 physical cores. How do you use 100 physical cores with cloud.net on-prem and make it significantly cheaper than that? That would be a pretty weird RAM:CPU ratio, and it's also without taking OnApp volume/payment term discounts into consideration.
I agree that the world world does not need another SolusVM, but it does need something to replace it with. It doesn't need to be as cheap, but it can't be up to 100 times more expensive (based on RAM density) either.
An example of what would work (for the hosts, probably not for OnApp): OnApp with community based support only and without "enterprise" features like distributed storage, HA, CDN etc (or charge extra for it) and make it something like $20/mo per CPU socket.
Similar to the other feedback, $256 per node is a bit much and doesn't really scale all too well, which is a shame as it was intriguing otherwise.
if you have 256GB in a 32core server, then OnApp is clearly more expensive than cloud.net is. Even more so if you exclude the cost of hosting OnApp management layer etc.
If you have 512GB:32Core servers then yes, you are right.
And then it's instant, setup right away with zero hazzle etc. AND you have access to world wide infrastructure + tons of other products of services coming to the platform.
The LET market is a bit special - in a Digital Ocean/Linode/Lightsail scene that is generally considered VERY low cost, our pricing actually makes sense.
Our experience is (we used to have a free version) that community based support is not a good solution for most service providers. I guess this is why there are so few OpenStack providers out there.
You're probably right for a decent proportion of the market with regards to this SaaS-ification of panels.
Our hypervisors are all 20 or more cores per 256GB ram for generic VM's, though looking to launch dedicated cores soon so that'll change.
I also agree that it's very hard to price such a thing as you said previously, because you've got people like us who you'd never hear from as long as everything just works as expected, then you've got the ones that need hand holding 24/7 which cost a fortune in support.
@ditlev Congrats on the new product. The user interface and experience as a whole is great. It looks like a very solid product however I am struggling to understand your bare metal per RAM pricing. With 256GB ram kind of being the standard already for hypervisors, and soon 512GB/1TB, I struggle to see what kind of company would choose to pay an additional ~$200 to $1000 per month per server for a control panel.
Thanks for your suggestions and feedback on interface etc - so much more to come!
I hear you - I guess, if you are selling VMs at LET pricing ($12/gb/year) then absolutely not. However, if you are selling that 1TB of ram for $5000/mo (as Digital Ocean would) then perhaps it would make more sense to you...
D
I would argue that 256GB is history already and very few would only put 256GB RAM in modern dual socket nodes. It would only make sense for dedicated CPU compute workloads with low RAM usage, not for generic balanced cloud VMs.
$1024/mo for a 1TB node does not make sense, simply because at that price range there are so many other alternatives, including OnApp.
Memory optimised droplet:
32GB 4vCPUs 6TB 1x 100GB $0.238 $160
You'd be asking for 20% of revenue there!
Basic droplet:
8GB 2vCPU 4TB 25GB 0.089 $60
13% of revenue?
Even something considered expensive like Atomia is only 5% of revenue. I obviously hope you succeed, but I think your pricing is way off.
Thinking more about this, I don't think the per core or ram model will work very well unless adjusted over time. I'll articulate as best I can.
The key point from a provider's point of view is this:
You're (cloud.net) assuming that provider revenue scales linearly with ram/cpu, that's not the case. If I double the ram and CPU cores in a hypervisor, it's not so I can put twice as many customers on a single box, it's largely so I can double the specs of VPS I provide to my clients over time.
Yes, more cores are going into newer CPUs, but at the same time, the number of cores provided to end users are increasing for the same amount of money. VPS plans are rising in RAM, again for the same amount of money. In theory, profitability per core and GB isn't really rising if that makes sense.
I think per socket could work nicely as a fair way of doing it for quite a long time, as you're not about to find servers with 8, 16, 32 physical CPUs sockets.
Gross revenue share is the other obvious option.