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.
- Apple: We'll unleash OS X Yosemite beta on the MASSES on 24 July
- Pics It's Google HQ - the British one: Reg man snaps covert shots INSIDE London offices
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- White? Male? You work in tech? Let us guess ... Twitter? We KNEW it!
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU