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
I think lifetime should be known as "life of this business". As long as this business is running, deal is valid. It's somehow like we're gambling.
Agreed
Maybe it's finally time to review the rules and start making it tougher, who gets the provider tag and who doesn't?! LET seems like a honeypot for rats at the moment. Easy to get provider tag, invest some money and close the project.
insert joke here RE. we all know what it looks like when Biloh is looking into something
Sorry, couldn't resist
I don't think lifetime deals are bad per-se, you just need to know what are you getting into and gamble responsibly.
Just force some mandatory red big-ass warning on lifetime deals posts straight out outlining it's gambling, unknown, could work, could not and let the user decide if he feeling frisky.
99 or 69 years helps accountability in case of deadpool. Easy to calculate refund amount and provider (rather his children) has a chance to charge after X years. So why not? Lifetime is snake oil.
This would make sense only if we knew for certain that MyW failed due to their n number of lifetime deals alone, but based on what we know, this wasn't the case
Yes, the n number of lifetime deals sold was probably a factor, but it wasn't the only factor, and probably not even the main factor behind the failing of MyW
One can also look at it this way: had those n number of lifetime deals not been sold, there wouldn't have been the income from those lifetime deals to begin with, and it's far from clear whether that missing income would have come from the selling of additional regularly priced services, given how competitive the shared hosting market is
The main issue for the failing seems to be that it was a one-man show partly/largely subsidized by one man, which was feasible as long as the man had a job with a good income but which was no longer feasible after the man lost his job (not to mention changes in his personal/family situation that incurred extra costs)
One can pretend/imagine that it was the n number of lifetime deals sold that was the main factor behind the failing of MyW, but in all likelihood (based on what we know), this was at best one (small) factor
Over the years, how many low-end providers here failed who had never offered lifetime deals? From what I can tell, the great majority of providers here who failed had never offered lifetime deals to begin with
A can of worms can catch you a bucket of fishies. 🤭
Few issues actually:
Overall, strategy to charge one-time fee and have recurring business expenses was clear indication that train will eventually hit the river of manure.
Myw example was brought as a trigger, not problem which "lifetime" deal ban strive to resolve. Myw clearly brought an example of how much more malice persons could create pump and dump schema, advertise in this forum and scam many members. This is call to action for prevention, regulation. To close that loophole. This forum does not meant to advertise snake oil.
But again, speaking on standards... The "20k incident" clearly showed that tolerance in this forum has VERY wide limits.
One can also look at it this way: had this individual not scammed users selling unsustainable lifetime offers, those users would still have their funds in their bank account.
Seriously what is this post?
We absolutely know this business closed (or... prolonged its death?) because they were selling unsustainable offers; otherwise it would still be open. And this was known way before they deadpooled.
This person used bold claims to make easy sales in a crowded, commoditized, and saturated marketplace. Claims they couldn't deliver on. Don't make excuses for it.
Miguel had a plan. Every time I inquired about the lifetime plans he stated that paying monthly customers already pay for hosting servers absorbing lifetimes. He was not relying on lifetimes in his business model. Something changed later. My guess is it was personal circumstances which affected the way he did business in some shape or form.
I'm kind of surprised that a lot of people support MikePT. Business is business; it is a transactional action, simple as: I pay you, you provide me. His business is unsustainable, so I never want to do business with him.
+1 for lifetime ban.
Just to be clear, I wasn't making excuses for the provider in question or for their actions
You (like @Levi ) seem to attribute malicious intent on the part of the provider. I don't see clear evidence that the provider acted with malicious intent. They may have acted irresponsibly, but (if true) it wouldn't follow that they were trying to cheat people
I just don't see that in this case, it was the n number of lifetime deals sold that explains why the provider failed. By all signs, this was at best a small factor in the story
I have nothing against the person, but he literally used lifetime offers as a form of crowdfunding, often with some story about why he needed the money.
Come on now, anyone could have seen this coming. And this will be the same story nearly every time here with lifetime offers because hosting has recurring expenses.
@angstrom
Agreed,
I do not envy you guys, as a decision regarding Life-Time deals will not be an easy one to take.
History is filled with companies that promised life-time air miles and, well, failed; and those were multi-million $ companies.
My input on this:
Life-Time Deals: These could be limited to once per year per provider, with a cap on the number of units offered (e.g., a limited number of XYZ items). This way, it could be easier to manage on your end, turning it into more of a special promo.
Provider's Age: It might be beneficial to require a minimum of 2 years in business before allowing providers to post Life-Time Deals. In the first year, it would likely be unsustainable for most providers, as it may be good for their image but hard on the budget.
Sales Requirement: I suggest implementing a minimum requirement of 20-25 regular sales threads per provider before allowing Life-Time offers. Reaching this threshold would give a better sense of the provider's reliability and quality. If services are subpar, it’s unlikely no one would say anything over the course of 20-25 sales threads. This also ensures that scammers who wait out the 2-year mark would need to establish some credibility before making such offers.
Lastly, while it's important to have some regulations in place, over-regulating offers could hinder the free market.
I’m sure there will be some great replies here that you can draw inspiration from.
HOST-C
PS:
Let’s not make this about Mike—there are already two threads on the topic, and judging from his replies, I think he’s gotten the message that you/some people are upset.
By that logic, we could end up regulating or banning crypto payments next.
Negligence is malice in nature, because business entity / controlling parties knows that they (he/she/it) has obligations and wilfully does not care. Of course there is force majeure (drastic illness, nature disaster, death) which force you to not act on said obligations.
In case of myw - I see it as negligence. You do not loose good paying job in over-night in normal business, you get warning, you feel decline of trust in you etc. And than you loose your job. I mean, time to react WAS enough, because properly steered business can be sold very fast to interested parties.
I can write and write on myw case, but this topic is not about that. It is in general about "lifetime" deals and how obscure they are. Myw fiasco is not the first and definitely not the last. Con artists closely monitor such incidents and if community is forgiving - they will move to action.
I wouldn't say that lifetime deals are obscure (what's obscure about them?), but it may be irresponsible for a provider to offer lifetime deals. I say "may" because to offer lifetime deals isn't necessarily irresponsible -- this depends on a number of other factors as well
How about refund if I bought a package 2 months ago, paid 200 EUR and business "going out due to personal reasons"? Should I smile and be happy? Or just "oops, what a blunder. I will find another one and pay 200 EUR, maybe he will last longer"? That's gamble. And web hosting is not a gamble, especially when you invest trust and host prod. Yes, a prod app on "lifetime" service. For example my penis photo. I would like that those pictures last indefinitely online after I die.
Business must have defined boundaries, responsibilities. Not just easy way out with "Guys, I'am sorry. Hold on, I will run for a milk in the store around the corner. Be back in few minutes...".
Would also agree with this. Not in favour of banning lifetime deals per se. Maybe, because I'm a lifetime hoarder there's some bias to that end, but it's a free market and I agree with what @default said in so far as that a little gamble as a smalltime investor can be fun. Similar to other members, I have had many lifetime deals where I felt like my investment was worth it many times over, and I wouldn't have my lifetime Cloudcone Dedi if lifetime was banned overall (also in giveaways). I agree that a warning may be in order, but I don't think (unpaid) mods should get even more work in "verifying" business plans of businesses before they're allowed to offer lifetimes. Maybe smth like the provider needs to be active on LET for at least x years before being allowed to post such offers, or can only post them if also other monthly/yearly plans are available?
To be fair, I never understood how people would assume "lifetime" meant "forever". You are doing business with a business entity. Once that entity goes out of business the deal, naturally, is void. I can win/buy a "lifetime" free entry to my favourite amusement park. If the amusement park closes, that's it. Of course, I don't expect an amusement park that shut down to still continue to honor their offer. It's not reasonable. I can also have bad luck and the park goes out of business shortly after I purchase. No red big warnings in this case either. Not sure why this was always a problem. Maybe just call it "one-off" payments then in the sense you won't be charged again?
@Levi
You're right.
But at least he was honest about it.
Just imagine the investors of companies like Nokia, BlackBerry, Kodak, Yahoo, Compaq, 3COM, and so on. These were giants with massive sales divisions, marketing teams, and executives, with billions of dollars in assets and patents, yet they still failed—and they weren’t operating on a forum.
This was simply an unfortunate chain of events, and it could have happened to anyone. In fact, it has happened to much bigger companies as well.
tl;dr: I'm against excessive regulation and, therefore, against banning all lifetime deals.
Businesses fail for various reasons, and there’s often nothing that can be done about it - it’s just the nature of things. Unless the LET team is prepared to conduct due diligence on every new business and thoroughly review their bussines plans & financials, it can't truly predict which deals or businesses might fail, whether they involve lifetime deals or not. Therefore, LET should NOT pretend it can fully protect forum members, because in reality, it can't.
LET should continue filtering out and responding to what appears to be outright scams, and that’s the best it can do. The fact that a provider recently advertised on LEB but was previously banned as a scammer here on LET shows that even this basic task is more challenging than it seems.
Everyone should always conduct their own due diligence!
P.S. In 2017, I purchased a great lifetime deal (not on LET), which has already paid for itself several times over. And I still have 93 years left on it. Who’s to say lifetime deals aren’t possible?
It's impossible to find "lifetime" in current era, haha
I trust no one thb so let's ban everything actually. Matter of fact, host/services with time limited deals deadpool more than lifetime ones.
No. Here you may find some lifetimes.
This, every single offer thread by has assurances that monthly paying customers are paying for these lifetime offers, its just a house of cards ready to tumble the moment the well is dry for the month.
Cant believe people are ignoring this part, he is raising those funds for basically lying, free loans from LET.
and in that entire page of lifetime deals i can only see 1 web hosting deal from some weird company that never heard before and guess what https://prnt.sc/wzaeQjH69sKp https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.bonohost.net too good to be true, not even a lifetime deal. prob abusing some "unlimited" reseller plan from some third party company that can anytime be discontinued or changed.
+1 ban lifetime deals for web hosting/vps hosting.
Regardless of the specific case....
I would be in favor of banning "lifetime" offers.
Maybe we can extend the rules on how long a deal providers may offer? Such as:
And cap it at 5 years. As that is a long time horizon for most usecases....
Hm, depending on country, maximum term of single contract can be 3 or 5 years for services. After that both parties have liberty to renew, cancel or change contract. I may be heavily mistaken.
lol obscure lol! just because it's lifetime it means mo no strategic plan. now that's obscure. funny! i wonder if oracle got zero plan for offering free services
Offers are limited by price/mo and a max billing period in the current rules.
Why not put a price limit on lifetime deals instead of banning them?