开云体育

I am here because the 'head' moderator in our Yahoogroup suggested I
join to get a bearing should we be forced to leave Yahoo.
We are a world wide group of people (mostly lurkers) with a common
interest, having a large amount of documents and pictures in the
archives.
I don't think we have problems raising USD 110/annum but need about
200GB at this time with trickling increase.
I do not think 110/month is doable.
--
Arno

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 05:30 pm, Arno Martens wrote:

I don't think we have problems raising USD 110/annum but need about
200GB at this time with trickling increase.
I do not think 110/month is doable

Even if it were doable, it would not get you enough storage.? $100/mo gets you only 100GB!!!
IMO, $100/mo ought to get you at least 10TB.

JMichaelTX,

IMO, $100/mo ought to get you at least 10TB.

Of course, we still need to be careful about comparing apples and oranges in that the storage services don't offer all the communications and other services provided by Groups.io.

I'm not saying your figure is wrong, as an add-on price, nor that it's right, but noting that Arno was looking at it from the existing options - and Enterprise groups have a bunch of extra features beyond the storage bump. He may not need those features, and he does need even more storage, so that brings us back around to the wish that there were a la carte storage options.

The flip side of the coin is that Mark may decide that cloud storage, at those capacity levels, is not the business he wants to be in. The questions he may have include whether it fits with his mission statement and whether the effort to implement and support it is a better use of his resources (supports more end users, more groups, or by whatever metric he might use) than the other ideas on his plate.

However that may be, the question has been asked in beta@, so I'm interested to see what Mark may say about it.

Shal

Even if it were doable, it would not get you enough storage.? $100/mo gets you only 100GB!!!IMO, $100/mo ought to get you at least 10TB.

I am sorry but it seems that I was out by one order, I have now been told that it is 10GB.
Thank you and Shal for your replies.
--
Arno

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 09:45 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

Of course, we still need to be careful about comparing apples and oranges in that the storage services don't offer all the communications and other services provided by Groups.io.

The other cloud services also have additional, but different, features.? They also are not just cloud storage.? I think my main point was that if you look across the board, storage everywhere is much cheaper than groups.io.? I'm not saying storage is the only cost, or should be the only factor in groups.io pricing, but I believe (as apparently several others do, including yourself) that the storage offered by groups.io is substantially too low, what the storage that comes with Premium and Enterprise is woefully too little, especially the Enterprise plan at $100/month.

Enterprise groups have a bunch of extra features beyond the storage bump.?

Are all of the Enterprise features shown here:??Plans And Pricing??

Enterprise plan provides only 3 extra features for 10X the cost of Premium:

The flip side of the coin is that Mark may decide that cloud storage, at those capacity levels, is not the business he wants to be in.

I have no idea what Mark's mission, objectives, or roadmap are.? Since all we can do is speculate, I don't find discussion about any of those to be worthwhile.? All I know is what the groups.io service/features/price are today, and some indication of near term changes as shown at beta.groups.io.? I will say that for me, having all of the features and storage I need in one place is attractive, provided that it is available at a reasonable, competitive price.

Cloud storage and services is a tough, competitive market today, especially when so many of the big companies offer so much for free, and charge very little for the paid plans with more storage and features.

JMichaelTX,

... but I believe (as apparently several others do, including
yourself) that the storage offered by groups.io is substantially too
low, what the storage that comes with Premium and Enterprise is
woefully too little, especially the Enterprise plan at $100/month.

I don't have any opinion about the pricing of Premium and Enterprise plans, or the base level of storage included with each. I'm more interested in being able to opt (and pay) for incremental increases in storage for my Basic groups.

I have no idea what Mark's mission, objectives, or roadmap are. Since
all we can do is speculate, I don't find discussion about any of
those to be worthwhile.

Agreed, which is why I closed with a deferral to see what might come of the discussion in beta@. I mentioned them here only as a caution nothing may come of that discussion.

Shal

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 09:45 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

The flip side of the coin is that Mark may decide that cloud storage, at those capacity levels, is not the business he wants to be in.

We can't read Mark's mind of course - but I would like to clarify that my post to beta was not to request that Mark enter the cloud storage business - rather that we, as group owners, had the chance to purchase increments of storage as needed for our groups' needs, and at the same time provide some income to Groups.io as a business - especially us Basic groups owners.

I for one would not like to mix up this request to Mark with the discussion of whether his current offerings of storage in the three existing levels are competitive or not - that's his choice and I trust that he has made it based on his experience, knowledge and a sound business plan. That's something different from making available packets of extra storage as needed by Groups.io groups, in particular Basic groups which would also allow Basic owners to support the business.

Just my thoughts,
Ginny

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 05:24 pm, Ginny T. wrote:

I would like to clarify that my post to beta was not to request that Mark enter the cloud storage business - rather that we, as group owners, had the chance to purchase increments of storage as needed for our groups' needs,

I guess I find that confusing.? On one hand you don't want Mark to enter the "cloud storage business", but on the other hand you want more cloud storage.? Surely it is clear that he can't offer more storage without being in the cloud storage business.???

I for one would not like to mix up this request to Mark with the discussion of whether his current offerings of storage in the three existing levels are competitive or not - that's his choice and I trust that he has made it based on his experience, knowledge and a sound business plan

Well, this discussion here in the GMF, which I started, is about the amount of cloud storage, and the pricing for it.? If you want a different discussion, then please feel free to start one.

Do you, or anyone in this discussion, know Mark personally, or have a direct professional or business relationship with him?? Have you seen his business plan?? Have you seen his financial backing?? If not, I'm not sure what basis there is for a trust that he will do the best thing for his customers.? Even if you have, things can change, and change quickly.?

IMO, it is naive to assume that the vendor providing a product or service has a well-thought-out business plan, and will always offer his product/service at a competitive price.? Most startup businesses fail within the first 5 years;? many much? sooner than that.? Many also hope to just get things going until they can sell out (for a huge? profit) to some big company, like Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.? Were that to happen, all bets would be off concerning the current services pricing.

Sorry if this offends anyone, and I don't mean to sound calloused, but frankly I? can't be too concerned about Mark personally.? I have to treat groups.io as a business.? As far as I can tell he has started groups.io as a business venture, and it is up to him (and any partners/investors he may have) to provide a service that is competitive and will attract and hold customers, and, ultimately, make a profit.

Even when a business has a great product, great service, fair, competitive pricing, and lots of customers, they can fail unexpectedly (to us).? A great example:? .

Having said that, I'm all for Mark, or anyone, to make a fair profit selling a good product/service.? As a customer, or even a potential customer, I have a right to make known what services, features, storage, and pricing I would like to see.? The business owner can consider (or not) this along with other feedback and research he/she has.

Finally, lest it be misunderstood again, I am NOT asking for a huge amount of storage for nothing.? Also you should know that I have no problems paying for a good service that I use. As an example, I have been a paying customer to?Evernote since its early days, even though the large major (> 200M) of its users use the free plan.? I didn't then, and don't now, know anyone at?Evernote personally.? But I did recognize their service as an unique, outstanding one, that I much valued, so I almost immediately subscribed to their Premium Plan, and have been ever since (> 10 years).? A very similar story with DropBox -- I've been a paying customer for > 7 years.

I am also puzzled what little enterprise offers for that price....

I have kept out of this discussion as for my group at least for the
moment 1GB is adequate. Though over time we may reach it with email
attachments, if we were to we could just drop the older ones along with
older photos. The ability to directly add members is the only feature
of Premium that would be useful but since invite seems to work fine is
hardly a must. We could afford $10/month if needed. $100/month is
totally unrealistic.

Mark has not commented yet on the @main list.

(and as an aside, is there a problem with our sister group on
Yahoogroups? I sent a post on Saturday which has not yet appeared and I
see there have been no posts since the 27th.)

Dave

On 30 Oct 2017 at 15:03, JMichaelTX wrote:

Are all of the Enterprise features shown here:??Plans And Pricing ( /static/pricing )??

Enterprise plan provides only 3 extra features for 10X the cost of Premium:

Not quite -
I'm not sure that I wasn't hearing discussion about selling storage - minus the other group functions. That's what I'm trying to clarify. My suggestion/request to Mark was about offering add-on storage to basic groups; you need to own a group, and if needed you can purchase extra storage for it. Yes, because it's not resident on the owner's or group members' computer, by semantics it's "cloud" -
I'm clarifying that it's to augment an existing group, not "simply" offering cloud storage to anyone for any purpose.
Nor did I say that I didn't want Mark to do or not do anything - other than hopefully, give consideration to allowing group owners to purchase extra storage for their groups. What Mark wants and can do is purely Mark's decision; is and always will be.
Ginny

Wed, 01 Nov 2017 15:59:02 -0700, "Ginny T." <gttemari21@...>,
wrote:

I'm clarifying that it's to augment an existing group, not "simply" offering cloud storage to anyone for any purpose.

I am at a little loss here, what business is it of a Group.io user if
Mark is selling storage space to anyone.
--
Arno

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 04:02 pm, Ginny T. wrote:

I'm not sure that I wasn't hearing discussion about selling storage - minus the other group functions. That's what I'm trying to clarify. My suggestion/request to Mark was about offering add-on storage to basic groups; you need to own a group, and if needed you can purchase extra storage for it. Yes, because it's not resident on the owner's or group members' computer, by semantics it's "cloud" -
I'm clarifying that it's to augment an existing group, not "simply" offering cloud storage to anyone for any purpose.

I have no idea where you could possibly have gotten that idea.
Just to be clear, when I started this topic, it was asking for more storage as part of the overall groups.io service.? You might want to reread my entire OP, if you have any doubts.

From my OP:

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

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.

Please notice how many times I referenced the other features/services provided by groups.io.? I hope that makes things clear.? I have to say I am amazed at the number of times replies in this thread that others have stated things, as if they were facts, that clearly are NOT in my OP.? Please people, before you inject your opinion (which is fine), please read in full the other posts, and make sure your assertions reflect the facts.

It is always better to ask for clarification than to make assertions that are not supported.

Ginny,

I'm not sure that I wasn't hearing discussion about selling storage -
minus the other group functions. That's what I'm trying to clarify.

I may be guilty of sowing some semantic confusion by referring both to "a la carte" options and to whether Mark is or should be in the "cloud storage" business. I never intended either of those to mean storage separate from groups.

Likewise with comments comparing Marks current and hoped-for options prices for storage at other services.

Anyway, this thread that JMichael started (here in GMF) began with his idea of boosting the storage included with each plan. I was more interested in buying an increment of extra storage for my Basic plan groups, at a price below that of going to Premium.

Your thread (over in beta@) is exactly on target with what I had in mind.


Shal

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 06:03 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

Anyway, this thread that JMichael started (here in GMF) began with his idea of boosting the storage included with each plan. I was more interested in buying an increment of extra storage for my Basic plan groups, at a price below that of going to Premium.

To be clear, I am for both:
? ? Increasing the storage provided with each plan
? ? Option to buy more storage for any plan

What might be a useful compromise would be to offer a Basic+ plan, offering the same facilities as the current Basic plan, but with 5-10Gb storage, for say $10-20 a year?

This would be affordable for many community-based and hobbyist groups, not able to justify $10/month and don't need the additional facilities offered with Premium and Enterprise, and provide a useful extra income for groups.io.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Martyn

What baffles me is the expectation to use facilities for virtually zero cost.
Tell me what hobbyist doesn't spend at minimum, every year, $2.00 per week on ANYthing not an absolute necessity for living?
That's about the price of a single Starbucks Grande coffee once per week.
Think about that!? What are our communities wiling to do to continue operating?
I'm retired and living on fixed income and this is a no brainer for me.
--
Bob Bellizzi

The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation

Bob,

What baffles me is the expectation to use facilities for virtually
zero cost.

While I appreciate your desire to help Mark out, everyone has their own limits and responsibilities.

GMF is just a help and discussion group, so here it is quite ok to talk about proposed features or changes to Groups.io without feeling that you'll insult Mark or impact his business. He's not even a member here (that's deliberate, he asked to send general questions over to Group Help and GMF to reduce the traffic level in beta@).
(see Group Description)

Shal

I wonder how the comparison looks today...

Groups.io isn't intended to be an online storage solution. It's a place to host email lists, with a little storage for the occasional attachment or pertinent files. If you need large amounts of storage you are in the wrong place and would be better off using some other platform. If you need a reliable email list provider you can't do much better than Groups.io. I would prefer that Groups.io concentrate on doing what they do well, supporting email groups, rather than that they try to be everything to everyone. Usually, when you try to do that quality suffers.

Jonathan

On 3/8/2020 3:51 PM, Tom H wrote:

I wonder how the comparison looks today...

[mod note: this seems like an unnecessarily defensive response. Tom's inquiry may be simple curiosity. Also, excess quote trimmed by moderator.]

Hi Jonathan,

I agree with all but your second sentence. Groups.io is a place to host email GROUPS.

Groups expect the option of attachments to emails, which uses storage. If there were the option of attachments going to “photos” or “files” for permanent storage (as in our technical references or the like) and “everything else”, the latter category could (given the easy ability to do so) be purged annually to free up space.

1GB is completely inadequate storage for a technical group that has been in existence since Y2K. We need the ability to attach photos of decent clarity and certain of these are what we consider “permanent records”. Yes, we can live with the current 1GB list, but not indefinitely.

While we would have no problem paying extra annually for additional storage at a reasonable rate on a “per GB” basis, having to jump to a $200/yr. annual payment is NOT commensurate with either Groups.io cost to provide such minimal additional storage OR the ongoing finances of nonprofit educational groups.

Best!

WRB

—