Question Massive price increase for reseller licenses?

[manni]

Especially if I listen to the @trialotto 's feedback, it is a confirmation how different things might be in the regions and with customers.

To give a background how I see this things: Internet Services is a cent business, we are not even talking about euros. Our competitors take € 4,- per month including 1 Domain, 25GB space, 2GB mailspace including Microsoft Exchange and Plesk. Customers look for things that they can blame on. We host a few thousand domains and we offer services to other providers as well. Why I am stating this? Of course we can just kick out every little annoying customer, but that's the business we are in, right? So this is not an option at all.

After discussion with our lawyers, the thing is easy:
As long as we sell a product, where the contract is NOT between developer/service provider and the end customer, everything is our problem.
As long as we have fixed rates in our price, it is OUR problem. Not Microsofts problem, not Plesks problem.

After discussion with one of our licensing partners:
If we have a contract with them, and the price is getting higher, they will pay the missing euros until the contract period is over. So it is simply the same, they can also not drive the price up.

We have decided to build our whole architecture, globally with different licensing and noc-providers, with Plesk ON RHEL systems, including system integrations etc. at a time where it this was designed together with SWsoft. It is also OUR problem. Not the clients one.

As we did promote RHEL only until 6 months ago, it is all our problems... Not the problems of customers... That's the easy thing.

Final solution - how I see it: Go out of the business.

I am not complaining about a really cool product (however we only use the API and 2-3 screens of the GUI, but yes it's cool) BUT I am complaining about the way how Plesk treats the customers. How can it be, that I pay for the same license through Partner 1 € 4,99 per month (I am happy to share a screenshot of the invoice), and the second partner charges me € 25 per month.

Honestly said, every Plesk customer must get really aggressive, if they hear, that I pay € 4,99 for a Web Host Edition license including PowerPack.

 

[trialotto]

... while explicitly stating that you are invoicing the undisputed part of the current price, but still uphold claim to the rest.
If the client already does continue to pay the old price, just send a payment reminder instead.

@mow,

Thank you for adding the more verbose version of what I hinted in rough outlines.

It is good to have this verbose version, since that text of yours is something that can and will add value in a legal sense.

In my world, this more "elaborate" and "legally fine-tuned" texts and additions are quite normal, so I tend to forget to mention them on this forum.

Thanks for the explicit reminder!

Kind regards....

PS A payment reminder, if not succesful, should be followed up by formal action - this will reverse the position of the customer : the customer is suddenly the "unwilling party" that is in default of an agreement that he cannot contest, due to the fact that the customer is in default.

 

[trialotto]

@manni

This quote

How can it be, that I pay for the same license through Partner 1 € 4,99 per month (I am happy to share a screenshot of the invoice), and the second partner charges me € 25 per month.

is the most interesting part, since that can be explained in a simple way : the cheaper licenses are often offered by "volume partners" and the more expensive licenses are often offered by either "greedy volume partners" (read: they overcharge) or "small partners" (read: the label "partner" might not even apply).

Nevertheless, the "simple explanation" is oversimplified - it is a golden rule that often fits, but that does not always reflects actual reality.

For instance, some hosting providers offer servers with cheap licenses that they own themselves and/or that they "sell" at a loss.

I am not bothered by the differences, I see it as an opportunity in the sense that it is most viable to bundle efforts and create one big license reseller that can deal with Plesk, negotiate license fees and keep them continuously cheap.

However, it does not work like that in daily practice - there is no way to get everybody aligned to act in the common interest.

As stated before, it is a Nash equilibrium.


This part

After discussion with our lawyers, the thing is easy:
As long as we sell a product, where the contract is NOT between developer/service provider and the end customer, everything is our problem.
As long as we have fixed rates in our price, it is OUR problem. Not Microsofts problem, not Plesks problem.

After discussion with one of our licensing partners:
If we have a contract with them, and the price is getting higher, they will pay the missing euros until the contract period is over. So it is simply the same, they can also not drive the price up.

We have decided to build our whole architecture, globally with different licensing and noc-providers, with Plesk ON RHEL systems, including system integrations etc. at a time where it this was designed together with SWsoft. It is also OUR problem. Not the clients one.

of your post, I must admit that I find it - honestly - mind-boggling.

It might be or it might not be your problem ........ the simple fact is that it SHOULD NOT be your problem.

If it is your problem, then you should really get better lawyers and/or legal advisors.

You (and your suppliers ... and everybody) should always have a clausule in an agreement that allows you to increase prices, if reasonable or required.

Also, if you FACTUALLY have fixed prices, how can you be responsible of liable?!??

Fixed prices means that there is an obligation to maintain the fixed prices and that implies that your customer gets fixed prices and not a ground to create a dispute about prices changes of any kind, being upwards or downwards.

I think that I might be reading it wrongly, but again, it is mind-boggling.


By the way, if you build your own platform, then you are also required to take into account future price changes of pieces of code or software that you already have included or that will have to be included sooner or later - nothing is for free or nothing will stay free.

Also, take a bit of friendly advice from me and realize that you are not the first to attempt a build of a new platform - it often fails, for many reasons (and the initiatives that were succesful are often sold to a company like the one that is behind Plesk).

I can give you another piece of advice, being that is not necessary to reinvent the wheel - one can easily workaround the "one-license-per-server-model" and use one Plesk license to manage many servers (read: an unlimited number of servers).

This workaround is not really practical in real life, but the costs of using Plesk licenses will become insignificant (read: one license), whereas costs of various types of maintenance will increase - it really is a trade-off of cost and benefits, but in some cases it can be worthwhile to use the workaround.


Kind regards....

 

[trialotto]

@trialotto

I think there is still some misunderstanding between what you are saying and what I am saying, so let me try to separate agreement and disagreement more clearly.
....
That is why I keep insisting that “imperfect system” and “pointless to act” are not the same thing.

@Hangover2

I have to emphasize that I am not willing to go into the area of "agreement vs disagreement", that would not be appropriate.

There are always opinions and facts .......... both of them are relevant, since a thorough discussion of facts and opinions will nourish development and growth.

That is, "development" and "growth" with a philosophical meaning.


After reading your post a couple of times, I can see where your points of view originate from - at least, I can see "better", but not perfectly.


It is true that I exaggerate with the term "no dent", but I do that on purpose.

It is true that the EU and its legal framework does have some measurable effect.

It is an absolute truth that imperfect systems still can and have to be used, since the imperfection does not make them pointless.

The definition of "ineffective" or even "inefficiënt" is dealt with by the statement and fact that imperfect systems are not pointless by imperfection.

However, the definition of "measurable" and "significant" is different.

The (exaggerated) term "no dent" is on the border of the definitions of the two terms "measurable" and "significant".


There is a sad truth in the fact (or statement) that "fines are too low".

One can say that big companies can incorporate the costs of big lawsuits and fines into prices, charged to customers.

From that perspective, fines are too low, but also not relevant : if a company is able to pass on all costs to customers, then any fine is barely relevant.

That gives light to another side of the same perspective : the company is able to pass on all costs ........ and that is market abuse.

So, in my humble opinion, combatting companies that are - still - able to pass on costs with fines on the grounds of market abuse .... that is exactly the opposite of what one wants to achieve and of what one should want to achieve.

Stated differently, fines are not the best way to combat market abuse by companies, if those companies are able to cover the fines by increasing prices.


A better solution would be prevention.

Prevention in the sense that companies can get too big and exert market power and hence have an incentive to proceed with market abuse.

The EU has strong legal frameworks that can actually prevent issues before they even arise ....

....... and one can safely assume or state that it is always better to prevent something, as opposed to filing complaints after the fact.


Now, we are coming to the reality behind the sad truth that "fines are too low".

The EU has better alternatives that can actually prevent companies becoming so big that they can exert market power and market abuse.

Why does the EU not always opt for these alternatives?

It is a practical matter and also a financial matter.

The alternative of fines (read: not prevention, but fines after the fact) is economically viable for the EU - it gives an alternative revenue that they budget for!

Nevertheless, as one would expect, the actual budget of the alternative revenuestream from fines and alike is rather optimistic.

The EU overestimates revenue and underestimates costs (and duration before fines become irrevocable and definitive).

So, yes, fines are too low in the sense that they do not allow the EU to do all the magic possible - the revenue will not cover all the tricks they have and there is a constant trade-off between costs and benefits, hence leaving the legal framework underused (or understaffed, both apply).

If fines were not too low, then the EU could get all the personnel required and go ahead with (long-duration) legal proceedings that can actually force any company to think before they even exert market power of any kind.

Consider a company earning billions per year and an EU earning - at most - a couple of billion in fines in exceptional (but not all) years - who will get the best personnel (lawyers and other staff) and who will have the stamina to go for the long duration legal proceedings?

It is a rethorical question ......... the companies targeted by the EU can "survive" the EU ...... as long as the fines are too low in such a fashion that the EU will not have the reserves that gives the EU stamina and the ability to get the best lawyers (and other staff).

The whole game would change if the fines can be much much higher ...... and this is an active topic within the entirety of the EU.

Most EU members want both the money (from fines) and the ability to enforce EU rules upon companies that have a tendency to misbehave.

Most EU members agree that there is a necessity to increase fines ...... whether this is due to "money considerations" or "enforcement considerations".


Again, I am not here to give opinions, it is better to focus on facts.

The facts need - every now and then - long pieces of text that can give a proper context.


There is no agreement or disagreement with your (last or previous) posts.

The only thing that has to be stated is that life is a bit more complex than one can imagine.

One can glorify the EU, but imperfections in the legal framework of the EU should be dealt with by the EU in an appropriate and timely fashion.

They do not, that is a simple fact.


As you do, I will return to a more practical point of view, so we can forget all of the above.


In a world of normal business, the maximum fines that can be imposed by the EU are really really high : a couple of percent of annual revenue is more than sufficient to keep any normal business in line with the plans of the EU, irregardless of the sanity of those plans.


In a world of "high margin tech" business, any (fine) percentage that is less than 10% to 15% of annual revenue is futile.

Big Tech simply has profit margins that are written in double digits, so a small percentage does not make a difference for them.


In addition, the fines themselves are mostly not tax-deductible (although there are some countries that allow tax deduction), but costs of legal proceedings are - in daily practice, the EU combats companies that are "sponsored" by EU members with tax shields concerning the legal costs of combatting fines.

@Hangover2 ......... I will not divulge on the topic, but Big Tech is able to "earn money" when being confronted with fines.

So, yes, filing complaints might be an excellent idea that allows the EU to take action, but it will also result in tax funds, paid by EU citizens like you and me, being rediverted to a company that already earns lots of money each and every year.


In conclusion, I cannot disagree or agree with your statements, since I am simply blanc on the matter.

I know the pitfalls, the tax schemes, the capability and incapability of the EU ........... to some extent, I have some insider knowledge.

However, even though I would be inclined to say that "it does not make any sense" or that "it is not effective at all (as has been proven by the past)" ......

...... I am also inclined to say that there is not a viable alternative to the filing of complaints.

In a normal world, one would simply create solid law (which is not the case now) and one would simply increase taxation for specific industries (which is certainly not the case at this moment) .......... so one has to conclude that we are not living in a normal world.

No need to make sense of the abnormal, so hence the reason why I am blanc on the matter.

Blanc - without subjective opinion ............ but I am not without words ;-)


Kind regards....

 

[Gary W.]

Let's not make this harder than it needs to be. Plesk's prices have increased disproportionately, which will inevitably put pressure on hosting providers. Users will gradually gravitate towards cheaper solutions that perform just as well. In short, Plesk is destined to disappear within the next 10 years. And that's fine.

 

[seqoi]

I moved on, today it feels like I was a hostage of Plesk. I forgot to unsubscribe and delete my account from this forum. I don't want to have anything to do with this genuinely condescending and patronizing Plesk staff members, disguised ex-staff, and cancerous environment overall.

Turned out for the lower price, I have more peace of mind, less maintenance, and overall FAR greater performance with Hetzner's similar services. I was hesitant a bit when I saw how rudimentary KonsoleH is, but that turned out to be irrational prejudice.

Goodby every soul that helped me here. The ones that tried to marginalize and deflect, you know exactly who you are - you'll end up getting exactly what you deserve. Sh** goes in sh** goes out. Since the dawn of time.

 

[Gary W.]

I moved on, today it feels like I was a hostage of Plesk. I forgot to unsubscribe and delete my account from this forum. I don't want to have anything to do with this genuinely condescending and patronizing Plesk staff members, disguised ex-staff, and cancerous environment overall.

You used the term 'hostage' and you were right, because it's very fitting. Plesk was acquired by venture capital firms whose only goal is to milk the cow. I wish you the very best.