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
you are right,i'm pretty sure that it's the time to do some modifications to the rules.
putting a higher fee for transfer or ice the transfer function for couple months
Don't most users on hostloc sell email accounts along with the servers?
More generally (going beyond hosting), one could characterize a lot of reselling as consisting of "obviously malicious hoarding and resale". Nevertheless, in a capitalist system, reselling is generally permitted and is often beneficial to consumers. (In fact, most of the items that we purchase on a daily basis have been resold.)
The question here is whether @NDTN care so much (or should care so much) about the reselling of their VPSes. If they allow easy transfers, this can give them good press and probably even more people will purchase their services as a result. From this perspective, they don't necessarily need to care so much about whether their VPSes are resold or not (and for how much).
At the same time, since transfer requests require more tickets (and hence more manual work), @NDTN could decide to introduce a fee for transfers. If they did this, then this would quickly reduce the number of transfer requests but it probably would also mean fewer VPS purchases overall.
In sum, it's a question whether @NDTN should care so much about the reselling of their VPSes, but (in a capitalist setting) it would be odd to say that reselling per se is bad.
Your idea is very clear, and I agree with it.
However, my point of view is not to prevent resale or transfer of services, but purely to express that a small number of people use the rules to operate the originally cheap services like financial products, and sell them at double price within a few days before and after. In turn, Green Cloud did not benefit from it, but these scalpers.
Wouldn't that harm the balance?
This argument doesn't generally apply to digital products where reselling involves very little value addition on the part of the reseller. For physical products, a reseller typically adds a bit of value by way of providing convenience and discoverability.
And one more thing, scalpers like OP mentioned, could be using some sort of random fake info when ordering for quick sale after in case the provider doesn't support service transfer, maybe providers like @NDTN can look into that as well.
Listen, I agree with you that the reselling that you pointed out appears to be "in bad form", but I guess that the question is just how pervasive and successful these reseller-scalpers really are. (Perhaps they seem to be more pervasive and successful than they really are simply because of their ads on Hostloc.)
As an example, if (say) more than 50% of GreenCloud's VPS purchases are successfully resold on Hostloc for double price, then I think that @NDTN would do well to introduce a transfer fee in order to reduce this number. But if the percentage of successfully resold VPSes on Hostloc is low (say, under 5%), perhaps @NDTN wouldn't feel the need to do any "intervention".
In sum, I don't think that the issue is easy to judge without seeing more data.
Fair point.
(In case, I would say that there is a small added value of convenience and discoverability -- no need for someone to keep up with offers on LET! -- but yes, it's small.)
Thank you for your rational analysis
I was assuming a context in which transfers are permitted and legitimate customer information is provided, but yes, you're right, if this isn't case, then one's evaluation of the situation would change quickly.
When everyone stopped buying, this phenomenon was eliminated. But you don't eliminate them.
This is what we called "business".
OP is more shady than the host.
Useless.
MJJ usually sells the whole account.
Recipient gets the account password as well as email password.
That's why it's priced "260 x 4" not "260 each".
I'm guessing you're not gagging for resale at the markup, but because you didn't get it, PH<7.
The biggest problem with this kind of resale is that the users (both sellers and buyers) do not read the TOS...
Does anyone read TOS? You don't have to read TOS to know resales of these kind are immoral at best and illegal at worst.
Since these kind of offers are generally limited, comparing this to console scalpers is fair and completely justified.
I think one way to stop scalpers is requiring the payment account used for renewals to match the name of the payment account used for initial purchase.
This restriction is believed to be effective in cracking down illegitimate sale of billing accounts by giving the recipient the account password and email password, without going through the provider.
By adding this restriction, the recipient won't be able to renew the service on their own (unless they have the same name).
Instead, they would have to rely on the sender/seller to help them with each renewal, which requires a much higher level of trust.
If they cannot trust the sender for many years, the resale price they are willing to pay would be limited to the perceived value for the first year only.
By limiting payment account name rather than specific payment account, a legitimate owner can switch among their own payment accounts as they desire, as long as the accounts have the same name.
Changing payment account name is equivalent to a service transfer, which must go through the provider.
The provider should offer it free to persons or companies who legally changed their names or had an acquisition, and charge a billing fee otherwise.
Actually, I think the first step should be one e-mail address per a person (per ID).
This will solve spams as well.
A cool down period for a transfer may not help more.
It will just defer the bulk of transfer requests to sometime after the initial promotions...
Restrictions on number of services to buy (keeping in consideration how many transfers done by the account holder) may help
If the host doesn't care about reselling, it doesn't much matter what we think.
They literally could stop this just by disabling resale of special deals. Click click.
See. The thing in thinking this way, is a problem. The host is not losing anything here. Its us consumers. For the host, a sale is a sale. Its the same with console scalpers.
Not really, folks are just mad they missed a sale.
If the company selling the service doesn't mind it being resold and doesn't mind it being resold for profit - that has nothing to do with us. We didn't win that sale anyway. It's literally their business decision IMO.
Your point however doesn't hold water, when these scalpers buy in bulk. The only reason you didn't get the sale is because some scalper our there bought everything just to resale.
I hope you get my point now.
So? The company selling it made money all the same. Again, if they are cool with it, that's all that matters.
That's why I led by saying that its only bad for us consumers. Please stop normalizing this stuff. Just because you're ok with it (for some reason), doesn't mean it's ok to generalize everyone as "disgruntled" consumers.
I think you are just missing my point. It literally doesn't matter what any of us thinks - it only matters what the host sets in its sale terms.
Inventing complex buyer and seller rules without the hosts support is just a fantasy and waste of time. As I said, if the host (the only one able to do anything about this) simply disallows reselling specials - the whole problem just poof, gone overnight.
The reason your mad is you didn't get a sale, someone else did (in bulk) and profited off it. To which, my opinion is if the host doesn't care, so what? I'm normalizing it - it already is normal and standard and a decision enabled and set by the host. It's the reality of it.
You aren't a disgruntled customer because you didn't buy anything. Just someone that is mad they missed a sale someone else bought out first. And you feel that idling or whatever the server on your account is more valid than some dude selling it on some sketchy forum. So again, my thought is, so what? Even if I felt bad someone missed out because of someone else bulk buying and selling - the only solution is the host anyway. It just is what it is.
OK. Let me go through your points.
Since, when is it a crime asking for better consumer practices from Host. If, the host allows resale of accounts (full accounts not server transfers like hetzner/netcup), then they should disallow it, especially during limited sales.
Its really not that complex to set up these rules, just terminate the account without refund when detected and post an advertisement in LET. There's one of the solution. Scalpers will stop scalping. I mean you seem to be more intelligent, maybe you can think a 100 more extremely easy ways.
Yeah, sadly, it has become the new normal. But, that's the issue. But, there's also the reputation hit from this type of threads. You are saying raising issues like this in forums is pointless and I just explained to you how it is not.
Dude. Even I said "disgruntled" "consumers" not "customers". Please learn the distinction. And, not everyone is buying servers for idling. I mean I have no problem people buying 10 servers and idle them. My problem is people buy 100 servers to resale and buy 500 more next time when the limited sale happens again. See the distinction here. The problem with your type of thinking is, that:
1. Scalpers use bots for buying. They are way faster than a human being.
2. If the resales are good (as in ps5 sales), scalpers will literally buy almost everything. Dude. They are re-selling literally for double the price.
Seems clear that the host couldn't care less.
No point in arguing.
Yeah. I seem to see the point now. Sometimes, I hate companies like netcup with the over-the-top account verifications and then there's these hosts, who doesn't seem to care. LOL.