Alot of hosting companies offer huge packages they realize no one will ever use, sell them to way too many people on a single server and then dump you if you actually use what you pay for. So here is my question: If a hosting company came out and sent you a bill every month based on what you had used, would you signup with that company? Example: - You Use: 100 MB of storage and 50 gb of bandwidth, they charge you $1.89 for that month.
would work, but there's something about it that would turn people off. I think people like the idea of just paying one flat monthly fee. I mean you'd really have to have prices like $0.01/gb of B/w and that's crazy. You also wouldn't make much profit because you would not be able to sell somebody more than they need or over-charge. The way hosting companies make money is from people under-using their resources.
I have actually seen this before. I will try to find the website, but this is not knew. But it is true that they will make a lot less money
Yes its a good idea and i'm looking forward to it implementation coz its more cost effective in customer point of view. Beside that,hosting company also can keep their server healthy by not overselling their server. So,its a both win win situation.
Well not necessarily. That fixed fee model of charging for underutilisation is old model which will be overturned as with any traditional models. A variable fee model may create more demand and therefore give you much higher capacity/ occupancy rate. Whereas the fixed fee may give you a much lower occupany. Since when you charge variable fee, you will normally have a certain margin when your usage/ capacity goes up you also make more
The search giants decreasing their income. Here is the explanation and the answer for your questions. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Yahoo-039-s-Net-Income-Decreased-90570.shtml Google decreases it's income! http://www.internetfinancialnews.co...80718GoogleSecondQuarterFinancialResults.html
Of course.. I want this.. Like electric bill.. You will only pay for what you consumed. But of course, web hoster will surely be in trouble if their customers won't pay.
...Or if they get a couple of have traffic websites hosted on their servers which are aimed to handle shared hosting plans. You can't expect much if your website is generating lots of traffic and consumes server resources. I doubt that the webhost will continue to feel comfortable with the "charge per GB" scheme, you'll most probably be advised to swich to a VPS or a dedicated box anyway. So at the end of the day, most will probably stick to a flat fee shared hosting package, and move to a VPS as soon as their site takes off at higher speed.
The new windows Azure will be something like that. Host the website in a cloud, scale it up as much as you like and pay the bandwidth and cpu you used. It will make hosting a lot cheaper and more efficient.
Is that a web hosting service to be introduced by Microsoft? Interesting. Yet, I am mostly sure that web hosting service users will form 2 divisions. One that is happy to pay for what they use and another one feeling comfortable with a fixed price for unmetered or huge bandwidth allowance. I'll definitely be joining the second team. For the extra peace of mind.
I can second the recommendation for Nearly Free Speech - www.nearlyfreespeech.net. Worth spending some time reading their FAQ, as they are so different from a traditional "oversell and underprovide" web host. Oh, and that's not an affiliate link, as they don't have them. I'm just a satisfied customer.
Ehm... Amazon is market leader into this space. http://aws.amazon.com/ They offer everything you need and much much more. But you need to have a brain to use it though. The service is solid, worldwide and is simply brilliant in it's execution (as is everything Amazon does btw). I often simply start a server, do a bunch of data processing and then pay like $0.34 for that. Also the Google Appengine offers pay-per-use, but on a much more select scale (you need to write special apps while on Amazon you can use anything). There are a bunch more but none as mature, solid and high quality as Amazon. The rest are just sad rip-offs atm.
The other thing that will likely sink this idea is the cost of payment processing. Paypal and others all impose a minimum fee amount so that a 10cent or 20 cent transaction becomes unreasonable. Even most merchant accounts charge a percent and then like 50 cents or so a transaction. This would likely kill a business model that involved "micro" payments
There is nothing to sink; there are companies making profit with pay-for-use hosting. Millions of $ /month actually.