17 votesAllan Kronmark shared this idea ·
311 votesAllan Kronmark supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the commentAllan Kronmark commented
First of all, thank you for providing an excellent service - My life would be so much more difficult without you!
When it comes to pricing, I try to see it from both sides. Of course you (Cloudways) should make money and cover your costs and everything.
That being said, I think you might be locking a lot of small users on smaller plans, because the upgrade isn't worth it. On one side, companies over a certain size might leave as they mature and can see a massive saving by moving their activities away from CW. On the other side, small customers such as myself is reluctant to upgrade because of the cost/benefit - it's simply cheaper to spin up new instances. For each new instance, you get $6, but you could be optimizing the business in terms of support costs by reducing the number of servers. Further more, it is possible that more people would opt for a better configuration, thus you would be earning more per instance.
Now, I'm not saying you haven't thought about this. In fact, I'm pretty sure you've spent a lot of time on your pricing structure.
Today, I was reminded that I only have one CPU per server. I was thinking about upgrading to get 2 cores but alas, I would have to pay $44 /mo, so that is a huge increase in cost for me.
I can't possibly say what a more fair pricing structure would be, but if it was e.g. $6 base +$3 extra for each increment, the Vultr server sizes $5 (1GB), $10 (2GB), $20 (4GB) and $40 (8GB) plans would be marked up to $11, $19, $32, $55
Besides, it seems like you tried to level out the pricing differences between DO and Vultr, but why? Following that logic, you should match DO and Vultr pricing to the highest priced alternative, but (luckily) you didn't (afaik).
I hope you will consider my feedback as well as all your other customers casting a vote for more fair, logical and transparent pricing.