While the groups.io service is a good one, IMO the storage limits are way too low, and the pricing way too high.

Anyone else have this view?
Over time the $/GB have gone down with the other Cloud vendors.
I wonder if we can expect this with groups.io?

At first I loved the features of groups.io, but now as we are really starting to use it, and to develop a wiki, the storage limits, and corresponding pricing, have given me pause.? Storage is obviously very cheap these days, so the groups.io limits/pricing seem inappropriate to me.? I am concerned about getting started with a wiki, and then running out of storage space.

Of course, since we are on the basic/free plan, I can't really complain that much.? I'd be happy now if the free limit was raised to, say, 5-10 GB.

groups.io Pricing:

• Plan? ? ? ? ? ?Price? ? ? ? ? ? ? Storage? ? ?I'd Like to See
• Basic? ? ? ? ?Free? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1 GB? ? ? ? ? ? ?10 GB
• Premium? ? $10/month? ? 10 GB? ? ? ? ? ?1 TB
• Enterprise? $100/month? 100 GB? ? ? ? ?10 TB

This is way out of line with , , and :

• Company? ? ? ? ? ?Plan? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Price? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Storage
• Google Drive? ? ? Basic? ? ? ? ? ? Free? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?15 GB
• ? ? ? ?"? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Paid 1? ? ? ? ? ?$1.99/mo? ? ? ? 100 GB
• ? ? ? ?"? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Paid 2? ? ? ? ? ?$9.99/mo? ? ? ? 1 TB
• ? ? ? ?"? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Paid 3? ? ? ? ? ?$99.99? ? ? ? ? ? 10 TB
• MS OneDrive? ? ? Basic? ? ? ? ? ? Free? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5 GB
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Paid 1? ? ? ? ? ?$1.99/mo? ? ? ? 50 GB
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Paid 2? ? ? ? ? ?$6.99/mo? ? ? ? 1 TB + Office 365 Personal Subscription
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Paid 3? ? ? ? ? ?$9.99/mo? ? ? ? 5 TB + Office 365 Home Subscription
• DropBox? ? ? ? ? ? ?Basic? ? ? ? ? ? Free? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?2 GB
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Plus? ? ? ? ? ? ? $9.99/mo? ? ? ? 1 TB
• ? ? ? "? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Pro? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? $19.99/mo? ? ? 1 TB + many features

JMichaelTX,

While the groups.io service is a good one, IMO the storage limits are
way too low, and the pricing way too high.
</static/pricing>

Anyone else have this view?

I do.

I ran into a problem moving one of my classmate groups from Yahoo to Groups.io - we had over 4 GB of photo data. Well within Yahoo's 100 GB limit, but too much for the 1 GB limit in a Groups.io free group.

The problem was resolved by rescaling the photos to a lower resolution (one particular folder was full of camera originals an 5000x4000 and 4096x3072 pixels). Still, I would rather not have had to do that.

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing. But the Premium plan pricing is twelve times that, for a capacity that is little more than double what I wanted to import.

I haven't gotten around to writing that as a proposal on beta@, but IIRC others had run into the storage limits as well.

Shal

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:09 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing. But the Premium plan pricing is twelve times that, for a capacity that is little more than double what I wanted to import.

I haven't gotten around to writing that as a proposal on beta@, but IIRC others had run into the storage limits as well.

Shal

I agree Shal,

Premium plan pricing is too high for a small group like mine which gathers lots of photos. We are going to have to rely on Mark simply removing "oldest files first" when we reach our 1GB limit. Not ideal, but I will put up with it.

John P

Unless it's something like an art group where detail is important, setting the group to reduce file size when uploaded will save a lot of space. I've got my groups set to reduce them to 312X312 maximum when uploaded. When viewed online, they're a max of 720x720. Some detail is lost, but we haven't had a problem using them yet.

Pure conjecture on my part, but I'm wondering if Mark isn't trying to minimize storage for the site and get folks to use other services for things that take a lot of space?

Duane

开云体育

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:09 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing.

I could go for $10/year for 100 GB of storage.? Any ideas how the groups.io management would feel about that?

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:09 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing.

I'm not sure I understand the Amazon pricing, but the Free Tier looks like it includes somewhere between 5 GB - 65 GB.? I'm fuzzy on what is total storage vs monthly bandwidth.? IAC, it looks very good!? If anyone can clarify, please do.

See??.

开云体育

One suggestion I'd like to make is after a short time, depending on the amount of photos, is to move them to a free storage web site where they could be downloaded and removed from groups.io . . . some will retain them for as little as a week to a year or even forever. Some will also charge at various prices. After downloading & removing them (saving on owner/moderator local hard drives) upload and post the download link. Members then can download photos (or files) as needed, and as often as required.

An option would be to charge a small donation or fee for any group costs to get the link, photos could be grouped by subject, months or years or whatever. This may require extra work for some but it would solve the problem of adding expense to groups.io to increase cost for storage space or smaller groups to upgrade to paid because of limited space.

I've shared Old Time Radio, old music or videos using web sites with files up to 2gb for years . . . for free!

ncatt

example
I uploaded an Abbott & Costello (OTR) for some to try, both are the same mp3
The 1st is packaged, the second is a single file


These are only available for 7 days to try (just click or paste into address bar)

JMichaelTX,

> While the groups.io service is a good one, IMO the storage limits are
> way too low, and the pricing way too high.
> </static/pricing>
>
> Anyone else have this view?

I do.

I ran into a problem moving one of my classmate groups from Yahoo to Groups.io - we had over 4 GB of photo data. Well within Yahoo's 100 GB limit, but too much for the 1 GB limit in a Groups.io free group.

The problem was resolved by rescaling the photos to a lower resolution (one particular folder was full of camera originals an 5000x4000 and 4096x3072 pixels). Still, I would rather not have had to do that.

I'd happily pay something more like $10/year for a boost that matches (even a reasonable markup on) Amazon EC2 storage pricing. But the Premium plan pricing is twelve times that, for a capacity that is little more than double what I wanted to import.

I haven't gotten around to writing that as a proposal on beta@, but IIRC others had run into the storage limits as well.

Shal

-- 
?
God Bless America
"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer."

Duane,

Pure conjecture on my part, but I'm wondering if Mark isn't trying to
minimize storage for the site and get folks to use other services for
things that take a lot of space?

I'd be happy to see some integration with sites like Flickr to hold photo content as an extension to the group's Photos section.

That is, Flickr allows even private photos to be shared with selected people through a "Guest Pass" URL. If in the photo upload process I could provide such an URL (rather than navigating to a photo on my computer) then Groups.io could reference the photo file from Flickr rather than consume group storage for it. Likewise for sharing whole albums from Flickr.

I think I've suggested this in the past in beta@, but maybe I should mention it again in the context of this thread.

Shal

JMichaelTX,

I could go for $10/year for 100 GB of storage. Any ideas how the
groups.io management would feel about that?

I've never broached the subject. Hard to guess, but among the downsides would be increasing complexity in his pricing tiers. I'd like to see it as an à la carte add-on, where one could buy as many extra storage increments as one wants, on top of the base plan.

And, of course, it would have to be priced to break-even or profit - which would require some analysis to work out.

I'm not sure I understand the Amazon pricing,

Me either.

but the Free Tier looks like it includes somewhere between 5 GB - 65
GB. I'm fuzzy on what is total storage vs monthly bandwidth. IAC, it
looks very good!

Groups.io couldn't use the free tier, they'd have to pay for it (as they already do for file and photo storage).

The trick would be to work out the "total cost of ownership" for the extra storage, which would have to include the storage itself, any overhead costs for management and backup, and some reserve for an essentially unpredictable amount of increased bandwidth charges for uploads and downloads.

Shal

I was actually going to get in touch with Mark to ask him if he would consider offering a simple Basic group to? "buy in" for more storage (on an annual basis) as an option. My groups don't need the additional services and support that the Premium level brings, but having some additional storage would be wonderful.
I do utilize the automatic resizing of photos and so forth, and it seems to be working for us for now - but, I did archive off a lot of photos to DropBox before I moved my groups. The archive file links are in a database directory in the groups.

I also sort of hate to complain, because of all of the great things Groups.io does offer without charge. That being said, while we can't afford the charges for Premium, a smaller annual fee for additional storage would likely be doable. I also think that there are a lot of other Basic groups that would appreciate this.
Ginny

Ginny,

I was actually going to get in touch with Mark to ask him if he would
consider offering a simple Basic group to "buy in" for more storage
(on an annual basis) as an option.

Go ahead, beta@ is the official place for suggestions.

I also sort of hate to complain, because of all of the great things
Groups.io does offer without charge.

I don't think Mark would take it as a complaint, unless you phrase it as one. He might even be gratified to know that people are willing to pay for such an option.

I also think that there are a lot of other Basic groups that would
appreciate this.

Agreed. I think you'll get a lot of support (including mine).

Shal

I did tell Mark that no good deed goes unpunished when he lowered the price to $10 per month for the Premium level
and sad to say that seems to be true.

I truly wish there was an unlike button on groups.io for conversations.
Bob Bellizzi

The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation

Thanks for the encouragement, Shal - I just posted to beta...
Ginny

Bob,

I truly wish there was an unlike button on groups.io for
conversations.

Well, now I'm curious - what would you unlike?

Shal

Thank you for asking, Shal
If you? think that the pittance Premium and Enterprise groups pay for the services we all receive, you are wrong.
We are Mark's favorite charity? and he works full time for our benefit, as a volunteer
Mark has given us so much for absolutely no charge; more than available anywhere else for our needs.
Yet we insistently yammer that we need and are entitled to more!? more! more!

I WOULD SO TOTALLY UNLIKE THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION.
--
Bob Bellizzi

The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation active i

Bob,

If you think that the pittance Premium and Enterprise groups pay for
the services we all receive, you are wrong.

That's not what Mark himself says.

He has stated a couple of times that Groups.io is already operating in the black and he expects that to get stronger over time. I wouldn't be surprised if that statement excludes compensation to himself - that he may consider his "sweat equity".

Yet we insistently yammer that we need and are entitled to more!
more! more!

Ginny's proposal, and mine, is that groups that want more pay for it.

I don't propose it as an entitlement or charity, I'm hopeful that Mark can set a price for extra storage that covers its direct and indirect costs, with money left over to contribute to the support of free (basic plan) services and Groups.io as a whole.

Shal

BTW, notice I Liked your last post.
Possibly it is operating in the black. But I'll wager he doesn't include his labor, not to mention a wage commensurate with the level of his capabilities and responsibility has has assumed.

I totally agree with you and Ginny's proposal.? I am not rich nor is our nonprofit loaded with cash.? We consider our group a necessary outreach and, as I told Mark, we would be willing to pay the original $30 per month for premium membership.

I would agree to pay more on an incremental agreement for more storage as needed that would downsize if we reduced our requirements by offloading some stuff.

BTW, I don't think you can have a domain and website less than $10 per month

Finally, if members really value a group they would pony up.? At least some would.
--
Bob Bellizzi

The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation

Exactly. Spot on.
Gin