WHMCS increases prices (again)

[whmcsguru]

No, actually it's not 'good' that they're doing this based on client count.

#1: This will cost them money in the longrun. If they did things properly (a flat out , across the board raise), this would make them money.

#2: They offer nothing additional at all. Nothing.

So, a client with 1 client gets the same, exact service as a client with 1500, yet that client with 1500 clients gets charged almost 3x as much, simply because 'tax'.

That's essentially what this is a 'tax' system. It's horrific to say the least. There's no justification for it, except because they're WHMCS.

These people don't contact WHMCS more (in fact, honestly, it's the other way around), they don't require more support, they don't get much anything different from WHMCS... So, why, again should they be forced to pay more?

 

[SenseiSteve]

If this price increase were to go toward R&D and enhanced support, yes, it would not concern me so much, but again, only time will tell. For now, I'm not a fan.

 

[whmcsguru]

Yeah, I don't have a ton of hope in that either. They made the same claims with the owned increase a year or so back. Same pitch. People bought it then, and pretty much nothing.

 

[Alex - A2 Hosting]

No, actually it's not 'good' that they're doing this based on client count.

#1: This will cost them money in the longrun. If they did things properly (a flat out , across the board raise), this would make them money.

#2: They offer nothing additional at all. Nothing.

So, a client with 1 client gets the same, exact service as a client with 1500, yet that client with 1500 clients gets charged almost 3x as much, simply because 'tax'.

That's essentially what this is a 'tax' system. It's horrific to say the least. There's no justification for it, except because they're WHMCS.

These people don't contact WHMCS more (in fact, honestly, it's the other way around), they don't require more support, they don't get much anything different from WHMCS... So, why, again should they be forced to pay more?

You have to think bigger than that. Changing prices across the board could have costed them MUCH more AND had a much more negative impact. It isn't as simple as you describe it and certainly not the only 'proper' way of raising prices.

If they raised prices across the board, smaller companies would look at alternatives such as Blesta. This could have a huge impact on their market share. Also, when you increase prices across the board you have to take into account the other sold prices, specifically the reseller program. If you're having $25 and $40 licenses then have some companies offering licenses for $5 - $6, people might find a company that offers WHMCS at a much cheaper rate and get it from them. Solution? Raise the prices on the reseller licenses forcing companies to evaluate all of their reseller package pricing etc Outcome? Companies will turn to resell other platforms such as Blesta in order to keep their reseller package pricing consistent.

Once Blesta or X alternative gains enough market share more companies may decide they want to resell it instead of WHMCS and given an across the board price increase, that makes sense.

The way they have done it can be considered 'proper' though not the only way. Smaller companies have no impact, if you have fewer than X clients you'll still pay the same rate.

Number 2 isn't exactly true neither. Larger companies do get more from WHMCS, more time saved. Now feature-wise etc sure, it isn't fair but when you're large enough it doesn't matter if you're paying $15 or $40. The turn on that is huge, especially as you grow. As you grow you have more clients, much more automation taking place which translates into much more time being saved. It isn't fair but it isn't a bummer for most companies that have packed their products reasonably.

To end this, if +$9 whilst having 250 - 1000 clients is worth the effort of all your posts then you probably need to look at your pricing.

 

[HostLeet]

I don't agree with it simply because it looks like they're just doing it because they can get away with it... Oh look! these customers have a lot more clients than the rest, lets charge them more! :uhh:

 

[whmcsguru]

Changing prices across the board could have costed them MUCH more AND had a much more negative impact.

Nonsense. If you can't afford at least $20/month for your billing platform, then you're in the wrong business

Number 2 isn't exactly true neither. Larger companies do get more from WHMCS, more time saved. .

Again, nonsense. You get no additional 'benefit' from WHMCS as your client base grows. You don't save any more time, or spend any less. You're still going to use an automation platform, so that nonsense is just that... nonsense. You benefit nothing in the longrun

 

[Alex - A2 Hosting]

Nonsense. If you can't afford at least $20/month for your billing platform, then you're in the wrong business

Yes, that is what I said pretty much. Though if you think that would be everyones attitude then you're very wrong. I am pretty confident a lot of people would have looked at alternatives if there was an across the board price increase.

Now if they're in the wrong business or not is for another discussion.

Again, nonsense. You get no additional 'benefit' from WHMCS as your client base grows. You don't save any more time, or spend any less. You're still going to use an automation platform, so that nonsense is just that... nonsense. You benefit nothing in the longrun

You have to think of it as man hours. If you took WHMCS out of the equation a smaller company might survive by spending X hours day managing accounts via spreadsheets, emailing etc. Once you get to our size, this is impossible so the value we get out of WHMCS is significantly more than smaller companies so yes, WHMCS saves us much more man hours than it does a smaller company and so the value to us is much more significant.

Of course we can agree to disagree and put it down to what really matters: will the extra money be used to improve WHMCS. This is something we'll see in the future though many have their doubts.

 

[whmcsguru]

So what if people looked at alternatives? They'd be back. Unfortunately, right now, and this is something that those behind WHMCS know, there are no solid alternatives. The losers that keep coming up and trying to overtake them are just that, losing propositions.

As far as managing accounts, again, no company does that any more. None. This isn't something unique to WHMCS. It's not even something WHMCS brought to the table. Hell, that was done , solidly before they took over, with Modernbill, ClientExec, Blesta, etc.... The software doesn't give one any additional benefit for the number of clients they have, none.

Put simply, as I did earlier, this is a 'taxation' system, which works great for a country, because, quite honestly, those paying more taxes, use more of the resources. However, those using WHMCS use the same amount of resources. Larger companies, actually, have LESS of a drain on WHMCS resources, as they outsource support, development, etc... So, they should be paying less to WHMCS, instead of being taxed more, for the privilege of having more customers.

As far as 'improvements'? What 'improvements' have we seen from the additional funds raised from owned licenses again? It's been the same old, same old, since day one. Support? Yeah, right, you're joking. Development? Not much 'improvement' (if any) there. Still 1-2 years per major release, so that's not changed. I"m not complaining about their release schedule, at all, because it's still one of the best. However, we have seen nothing from these additional funds from owned licenses. What makes you think this is going to be different?

Right now (and you can bet this is something WHMCS knows), there is no mature competition for WHMCS. Blesta's tried, but failed to deliver anything close. CE? Same... The players in this industry are washed up and old. Until someone comes in and knocks WHMCS down a few pegs, it's just going to get worse. The attitude at the top is the problem.

 

[xtm_mike]

If they raised the prices across the board they would have likely lost me as a customer. I don't have anywhere near 250 customers and we're only just breaking even.

I'm quite happy with the tier system. The more clients I have, the more valuable the software is to me, the more I am willing to pay.

 

[whmcsguru]

If you're "just breaking even" then you need to re-examine your business model. That's not WHMCS' fault.
$20 is quite reasonable for software at the scale of WHMCS. If you can't afford that, then you shouldn't be in business.

 

[xtm_mike]

If you're "just breaking even" then you need to re-examine your business model. That's not WHMCS' fault.
$20 is quite reasonable for software at the scale of WHMCS. If you can't afford that, then you shouldn't be in business.

I'm more than happy with the price (that I can afford), new tiered pricing structure and my own business model thanks.

 

[Artashes]

If you're "just breaking even" then you need to re-examine your business model. That's not WHMCS' fault.
$20 is quite reasonable for software at the scale of WHMCS. If you can't afford that, then you shouldn't be in business.

That's a little harsh.

XTM does not have to re-examine anything, he doesn't object to paying, and clearly in his post he mentioned that he is happy with the tier pay system. Also I don't think he meant to say that $20 is too much for his business, rather than if one company decided to drastically up their pricing, then he'd probably just look for an alternative solution, which there are a few.

Such increases are more painful to smaller operators on a smaller budget than large companies that have comfortable financials. Even a $20/month increase ($240 for the year) is the money they'd rather spend advertising than handing over to the same software that hasn't delivered 20-dollars a month worth of additional benefits.

 

[xtm_mike]

That's a little harsh.

XTM does not have to re-examine anything, he doesn't object to paying, and clearly in his post he mentioned that he is happy with the tier pay system. Also I don't think he meant to say that $20 is too much for his business, rather than if one company decided to drastically up their pricing, then he'd probably just look for an alternative solution, which there are a few.

Such increases are more painful to smaller operators on a smaller budget than large companies that have comfortable financials. Even a $20/month increase ($240 for the year) is the money they'd rather spend advertising than handing over to the same software that hasn't delivered 20-dollars a month worth of additional benefits.

Thanks, thats pretty much spot on. If WHMCS increased their prices just $20 we would definitely feel it as would many other new/small web hosts.

 

[wizzo85]

The price increase seems reasonable and i would be more than happy to pay as long as their support is up to par, which I have never had any issues with.

 

[easyhostmedia]

I uses a branded version ( now starter) and as being in the UK have to pay 20% VAT, so it works out just under $20 a month direct through WHMCS.

I have an un-managed 100GB VPS with a WHMCS licence that costs me $25.

so for me it is cheaper to get the licence from a reseller. i do however have a dev. licence with WHMCS

 

[nelsa]

Well I used WHMCS and didn't liked...in fact it was mess in that time...every day patch..patch..bug.. ,I left 2 years ago...I really don't see reason for new pricing but I respect their choice...they probably made calculations and have own rerasons,but also they could easy finish like Host Bill..not likely but could
...I think they are aware that there is significant gap between them and their closest competition when it comes to addons..plugins...gateways..
I must admit I had hard time to find billing solution for myself and even when I find it..We have to make few plugins and two gateways by ourself ....
But now I'm sleeping well,I never could this with WHMCS....well it was two years ago ..maybe now WHMCS is more stable..probably it is.
If they are even close to Blesta when it comes stability than I would pay 20$ any time..would go probably with owned licence....

 

[HostProto]

if they are collecting the client details, then they do this without permission which is in breach of the Data Protection Act.

How would one be able to prove this?

Only way would be to de-ioncube their source.
Maybe packet sniff?

Could one elaborate on how?

 

[easyhostmedia]

How would one be able to prove this?

Only way would be to de-ioncube their source.
Maybe packet sniff?

Could one elaborate on how?

i would not need to prove it, as they admit their system now operates by how many clients you have then it must be picking up some info to carry out these checks and that is all you would need to report such action to the authorities.
The authorities wold then have the powers to get them to disclose what info they collect

 

[Ravi-EstroWeb]

According to my View.
They made such Slab according to the Strength of WebHost.For new Web hosting providers , its Quite good & Affordable 15.95 USD monthly.

By the way , I am currently Using Old Owned license. They didnt changed my billing /Tenure.I just pay for the Upgrades.

 

[easyhostmedia]

According to my View.
They made such Slab according to the Strength of WebHost.For new Web hosting providers , its Quite good & Affordable 15.95 USD monthly.

By the way , I am currently Using Old Owned license. They didnt changed my billing /Tenure.I just pay for the Upgrades.

The new billing is worked out on how many clients you have.

it is only $15.95 if you have under 250 clients, but like me in the UK i have to add 20% VAT to the $15.95, so it just comes to under $20.

I managed to get a 100GB unmanaged VPS with a WHMCS licence for $25 a month using a recurring discount code i found in WHT.