1 post • joined 29 Jul 2011
Why not a utility pricing model?
The flat 16k pricetag per year seems a bit out of step to me.
Recently we've seen RedHat introduce a utility pricing scheme for access to RHEL on Amazon's EC2. This seems like a much more natural way to approach service and support costs that fits with how public cloud instances are expensed. You pay an hourly rate for cpu and band _and_ support.
But this flat cost...which cost the same for 1 active instance as it does for 100 active instances, no matter if 98 of them sit idle for 3/4 of the year until you need to scale for high loads? This seems completely at odds with the economic factors that make cloud computing, and all utility computing, attractive. I simply don't understand why Canonical would do it that way, it seems sort of backwards and out of step with where the sector is going.
I hope it works out for Canonical, but it feels like a misstep in the pricing model. Unfortunately since they are a private held company, we won't really know if their flat pricing model is a boom or a bust, there's no quarterly reports or guidance statements to tease information from.
- Updated Microsoft Azure goes TITSUP (Total Inability To Support Usual Performance)
- The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?
- Review Apple takes blade to 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display
- Munich considers dumping Linux for ... GULP ... Windows!
- Pic iPhone 6 flip tip slips in Aussie's clip: Apple's 'reversible USB' leaks