A Poll regarding bandwidth and costs (important)
Sunday, July 27, 2003 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
This as good a time as any since this subject is going to have to be dealt with at some point:
Our Story So far...
As long time users know, the amount of traffic this site gets has steadily increased. This month something like 1.3 million unique individuals will visit this website.
Since the dot-com collapse, bandwidth prices have increasingly become painful because there's no realistic way to pay for the site via banner ads. We are getting ready to unveil Textbanners.net this next week and hopefully that will help (users can take out ads on the site directly for as little as $1 per day).
But realistically, we're at something like 50 megabits of bandwidth much of which is dedicated to this site.
Right now, Stardock pays for virtually all of the tab. The goal was always for WinCustomize to become self-sustaining. But as the site has grown, that hope has drifted further and further off.
But to try to off-set costs, we instituted WinCustomize subscriptions. For $19.95 a user gets a 2 year subscription to the site which gives them unlimited downloads, 2 premium suites, and the WinCustomize browser along with 5,000 free impressions on TextBanners.net.
Non-subscribers have been restricted to 50 megabytes of bandwidth they could consume in the form of downloads. You'll occasionally see a post by someone who suddenly discovers scruples and expresses his outrage and desire to defend innocent artists everywhere for having to pay to download more stuff. But it's been one of the few ways of getting people to subscribe or at least go away and go to some other site to download stuff.
Subscribers have helped us pay for new hardware, more bandwidth, etc. But it's still a fairly low percentage. Well not just fairly low but amazingly low (far less than 1% of visitors).
One reason for that is because Stardock customers are currently exempt from the bandwidth restriction. So are users with access levels Apprentice and up.
Who should pay the bills?
That's put Stardock in an awkward position. It's facing either having to raise the price on Object Desktop (the proposed price is $69.95 up front and $37.95 for renewals) or put some sort of cap on the amount of megabytes a non-subscriber Stardock customer can get. The proposal on that end is 250 megabytes.
We'd like to hear from you. Which way do you think is most fair? My opinion is that we should go with the 250 meg cap on SDof bandwidthvery few people download that amount of bandwidth so it would only affect a small percent (most of the bandwidth is used by a small percent btw). Those users can contribute either by subscribing for $20 for 2 years or contributing in other ways (skins, themes, walls, message boards, etc. and gaining higher access).
What's your view?
 |
|
Page 1 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #2 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:00 PM
[Message Edited]
Reply #3 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:01 PM
Reply #5 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:03 PM
Reply #6 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:09 PM
I previously wondered about having a download cap on SD registered users who may have been getting the most use of the site since the skins for the apps are mostly, although not exclusively, here. So capping the downloads on SD users might not have as much of an impact on product purchases as the other alternative and also may be a fairer way of supporting site costs. I subscribe to both OD and WC so of course I have no personal issue with such a move. Although no doubt some others may have other views.
Reply #7 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:10 PM
Reply #8 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:16 PM
I recently subscribed to a classical music site. They ask $25/year. I was always tempted but just couldn't justify it. The other day, I noticed that they have a pay/month option. So now, $2 something/month and I get all the classical music I want. If it ever got too much, I can unsubscribe with no penalty.
I notice that a lot of wall sites have paid-member sections, including places like digital blasphemy.
One thing that bothers me a little is when people who do subscribe are in an argument, they then use the paid status as an argument... "I paid for this and you didn't so listen to me" or to "my argument" as if a payment implies that all arguments are henceforth right, or more right than someone who has no subscription.
For the record, even though I have no WC bauble I am a subscriber. I usually use IE because I moderate a site and need to be able to go there immediately to delete porn links or what-not. Switching browsers just slows me down. And I have been reading threads where people have said something to the effect.. 'I paid for this why should I have to listen to you'.
As far as I am concerned the WC browser is value-rich. I would even have subscribed for a one year stretch. It is about more than the money.
[Message Edited]
Reply #9 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:20 PM
Reply #10 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:22 PM
Reply #11 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:22 PM
Reply #13 Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:48 PM
Guess I should wait till the Stardock/WC bashers get here and tell us it should be free like everything else is.
Reply #15 Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:05 PM
I vote for the cap being reduced. Seems more fair than making the software cost more.
Reply #16 Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:12 PM
Reply #17 Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:15 PM
Reply #18 Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:23 PM
To receive these things, one but needs only to listen quietly and to speak appropriately.
[Message Edited]
Reply #19 Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:48 PM
Reply #20 Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:55 PM
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Sunday, July 27, 2003 3:56 PM