Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Nathan Eisenberg
wrote:
>> In fact, it's not. If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safari
>> books, they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you
>> don't
>> [...]
>> But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated
>> that way.
>> Assuming the paid service is actually *the update service*.
>
> I've always strongly felt that this was a rather foul business practice,
> wherever I've seen it. The justification for it is the utterly misguided
> belief that, if allowed to, customers will pay for a month then
Spin it the other direction. The company will sell you the current
version of their system for $X. For a period of Y years they will at
any time sell you the then-current version of the system at the
discount rate (%{Y} since last payment)*$X. Y years after your last
payment, they will sell you the then-current version of their system
at any time for $X.
Where's the ethical problem here?
The same company offers you a subscription so that you're considered
paid up on the cost of the then-current system at all times during the
duration of the subscription. Did this raise a new ethical problem?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> If you let the agreement lapse, usually no warranty. Most extended
> warranties can't be renewed 6 months after they lapsed, because you found
> the product just broke and you would like to renew a warranty, so you can
> RMA it for a repair/replacement.
My out-of-warranty refrigerator from Sears broke a couple years ago.
When I called to schedule a repair, the nice lady on the phone pitched
me on buying a 1 year extended warranty. Easy sale. The repairman came
out, fixed the fridge, and billed the warranty company for about 1.5
times the cost of the warranty I bought. Every so often I receive a
mailer from Sears offering to sell me another 1 year extended warranty
at a fixed price.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web:
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
Actually, the unit still works as an e-mail filter. You can still access the Barracuda "reputation" list with it and it does SPF and Baysian filtering still. It also lets you configure black lists and other RBLs as well, so it still has utility. The thing that you don't get is updated SPAM and virus defs as well as updated software for the machine. Someone mentioned the fact that if the hardware is still working, then the renewal policy is reasonable since the machine still works. May I remind that person that Barracuda charges you for the hardware AND also the subscriptions to the spam and virus defs. If they provided the hardware for free, then I would agree with him about the renewal policy, but its NOT free. - Original Message - From: "Michael Thomas" To: "Jon Lewis" Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:22 PM Subject: Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again... On 12/22/2011 11:07 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Michael Thomas wrote: At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own, or you pay for service that somebody else provides. This "you bought useless hardware unless you pay up" is really what's infuriating. Presumably, Barracuda's hardware is i386/i686 compatible commodity parts. It's probably not at all "useless". Just attach a USB DVD drive or USB flash drive, wipe the disk(s) and install your favorite Linux distro. It may take some doing to get all/most of the features Barracuda provides setup on your own...but if you don't have the time/expertise to do it, that's why companies like Barracuda exist. If the spam filter stop working, it's presumably a pretty useless thing as a... spam filtering device which is presumably why most people are buying barracuda boxen. I suppose my larger point is that this is why companies like postini exist. At least there you know that if you don't pay the bill, mail stops flowing altogether much like any other service. It's this "I paid for the hardware, but I don't really own what I paid for" state that seems to stick in people's craw. Or maybe if they just leased the box it would be more clear what their business model was. Mike
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
- Original Message - > From: "Jimmy Hess" > I guess the networking equivalent is --- you stop paying for your OC3 > with $BIG_TELCO for a few months, and you get it turned off, but for > some reason the physical cabling isn't physically removed. A few months > later, you decide you need an OC3 again and exclaim the unfairness of > $BIG_TELCO informing you that a fee is required to re-install the OC3 > they haven't removed yet. > How unfair right... many thousands of $$ just to flip a switch? One > chose to go without service for a few months, therefore should get a > lower total cost, based on the new renewal date, right? Well, I strongly suspect that's a bad analogy: the thing they'd be collecting for would be *the three months of unpaid bills on the circuit*. Possibly plus a deposit to make sure you don't screw them again. But they might well not charge you a new installation charge; I don't know that there's an industry standard practice there, nor that we'd know about if it there was (people who do that aren't much talking about it). And, finally, I suspect that on a circuit the size of an OC-3, you'd be lucky to get to be 30 days late on the payment; "a few" is generally between 3 and 5. But in fact, while you'd be on the hook for the "few months" they let it run while you weren't paying, you would almost certainly *not* owe them for the "few months" after they shut it off, since they weren't providing you the service then. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: Leveraging a superior bargaining position to achieve more revenue from a kind of high-risk customer doesn't sound "dishonest" it sounds rational. Why would an agreement be denominated as "1 year maintenance" if it could simply be reinstated at will? What is meant by high-risk, is a customer inclined to renew maintenance, only at the moment that a lot of services are to be required all at once -- for example, just before a major software upgrade, likely followed by a slew of support incidents, possibly at a cost to the software vendor above the fee. I guess the networking equivalent is --- you stop paying for your OC3 with $BIG_TELCO for a few months, and you get it turned off, but for some reason the physical cabling isn't physically removed. A few months later, you decide you need an OC3 again and exclaim the unfairness of $BIG_TELCO informing you that a fee is required to re-install the OC3 they haven't removed yet. How unfair right... many thousands of $$ just to flip a switch? One chose to go without service for a few months, therefore should get a lower total cost, based on the new renewal date, right? In fact, it's not. If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safari > books, > they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you don't > *get* > It's a standard practice for _Software_ _Maintenance_ agreements; where a product is purchased, with an annual charge for updates, support, sometimes warranty, and other services for that product. If you let the agreement lapse, usually no warranty. Most extended warranties can't be renewed 6 months after they lapsed, because you found the product just broke and you would like to renew a warranty, so you can RMA it for a repair/replacement. Safari books is not a software maintenance agreement; it's a subscription service, and they allow members of the public to start a subscription any time, the cost to renew's basically equivalent to the cost to sign up; it's not as if there is a higher price for new subs. But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated that > way. > Yes. Software maintenance / subscription update services are not usually sold to just anyone on the street; they are normally sold with software. If you allowed your maintenance agreement to lapse, then You may now be in a position to negotiate a new agreement, but this most likely consists of asking what costs/terms are available for re-upping the maintenance, and having to accept in order to re-up. This likely means one of these scenarios... 1 o One time upgrade fee 2 o Pay delinquent maintenance bills, and then renew from anniversary date. 3 o Have to re-purchase product at brand new product cost, no 'upgrade' discount, since maintenance lapsed. (1) and (2) are most popular ways vendors offer to redeem expired maintenance. (3) Is not dishonest.It is the simplest thing to do, and justifiable if the product's price is low. One-time upgrade fee is very common with consumer software. When you buy "Windows 95" retail, you don't even pay an annual maintenance for free lifetime upgrades. Chances are you buy each upgrade, or get forced into (3), since Windows' cost is basically built into each new computer nowadays. But imagine if no computers came with windows.. and Microsoft offered you $25 a year for annual maintenance, for your Windows '95, and issued a new release every 2 years. If you allowed your maintenance to lapse in 1995, and then decided to renew in 2011... do you really think a reasonable software vendor would give you the 1 year windows '95 maintenance re-activation for $25 and the free upgrade to Windows 7? Nope... chances are you'd to pay $150+ before the vendor would consider re-upping that. -- -JH
RE: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
The vmware image is more expensive than the midrange hardware. (and you pay for how many processors it will use, ram, features like multi domain support, etc...) __ Eric Esslinger Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities http://www.fpu-tn.com/ (931)433-1522 ext 165 > -Original Message- > From: Jeremy Parr [mailto:jeremyp...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:54 PM > To: Jon Lewis; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to > get me to fall into their trap again... > > > On 22 December 2011 14:07, Jon Lewis wrote: > > > Presumably, Barracuda's hardware is i386/i686 compatible commodity > > parts. It's probably not at all "useless". Just attach a USB DVD > > drive or USB flash drive, wipe the disk(s) and install your > favorite > > Linux distro. It may take some doing to get all/most of the > features > > Barracuda provides setup on your own...but if you don't have the > > time/expertise to do it, that's why companies like Barracuda exist. > > > The hardware Barracuda charges you a very pretty penny for is > very low end. $3000 or so that they charge for a mid-level > spam filters gets you a single power supply, single hard > disk, and a low end processor. > > According to their site it does appear they offer the product > as VM image. This would eliminate the stupid hardware markup > and their attempt at backdating updates. > This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. <>
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On 22 December 2011 14:07, Jon Lewis wrote: > Presumably, Barracuda's hardware is i386/i686 compatible commodity parts. > It's probably not at all "useless". Just attach a USB DVD drive or USB > flash drive, wipe the disk(s) and install your favorite Linux distro. > It may take some doing to get all/most of the features Barracuda provides > setup on your own...but if you don't have the time/expertise to do it, > that's why companies like Barracuda exist. > The hardware Barracuda charges you a very pretty penny for is very low end. $3000 or so that they charge for a mid-level spam filters gets you a single power supply, single hard disk, and a low end processor. According to their site it does appear they offer the product as VM image. This would eliminate the stupid hardware markup and their attempt at backdating updates.
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On 12/22/2011 11:07 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Michael Thomas wrote: At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own, or you pay for service that somebody else provides. This "you bought useless hardware unless you pay up" is really what's infuriating. Presumably, Barracuda's hardware is i386/i686 compatible commodity parts. It's probably not at all "useless". Just attach a USB DVD drive or USB flash drive, wipe the disk(s) and install your favorite Linux distro. It may take some doing to get all/most of the features Barracuda provides setup on your own...but if you don't have the time/expertise to do it, that's why companies like Barracuda exist. If the spam filter stop working, it's presumably a pretty useless thing as a... spam filtering device which is presumably why most people are buying barracuda boxen. I suppose my larger point is that this is why companies like postini exist. At least there you know that if you don't pay the bill, mail stops flowing altogether much like any other service. It's this "I paid for the hardware, but I don't really own what I paid for" state that seems to stick in people's craw. Or maybe if they just leased the box it would be more clear what their business model was. Mike
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Michael Thomas wrote: At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own, or you pay for service that somebody else provides. This "you bought useless hardware unless you pay up" is really what's infuriating. Presumably, Barracuda's hardware is i386/i686 compatible commodity parts. It's probably not at all "useless". Just attach a USB DVD drive or USB flash drive, wipe the disk(s) and install your favorite Linux distro. It may take some doing to get all/most of the features Barracuda provides setup on your own...but if you don't have the time/expertise to do it, that's why companies like Barracuda exist. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:54:55AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get > all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of > paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own, > or you pay for service that somebody else provides. This "you > bought useless hardware unless you pay up" is really what's > infuriating. I didn't say the box should stop working, but that it should stop processing the subscription data. For instance Barracuda boxes do local bayesian filtering, which does not require a subscription, and should continue to work. But I'm also not sure why this is any more or less infuriating than other things in the real world. When my home was built I had to buy an electric meter, at my cost, so I could get electric _service_. If I don't pay the bill they turn me off, that hardware is now useless and I don't get to recoup that cost. Barracuda has bundled a hardware product with a service. Some people want it priced like a hardware product, some people want it priced like a service. That is fundamentally why they are in a no-win position from a customer relations perspective. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpDa6UiTi0gv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On 12/22/2011 10:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26:56PM -0600, PC wrote: This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you didn't use (It's a service, and I don't care about their fixed costs, I went into it knowing I'd have a license for the signatures as they were expired), I do understand where they are coming from for software/firmware development. Unfortunately, they don't decouple the two. Maybe I'm just a grinch, but I think they could fix this problem. If they set the software in the box so that on the day your subscription expires it no longer processes the subscription data there would be a lot less issue. At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own, or you pay for service that somebody else provides. This "you bought useless hardware unless you pay up" is really what's infuriating. Mike
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26:56PM -0600, PC wrote: > This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes > things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you > didn't use (It's a service, and I don't care about their fixed costs, I > went into it knowing I'd have a license for the signatures as they were > expired), I do understand where they are coming from for software/firmware > development. Unfortunately, they don't decouple the two. Maybe I'm just a grinch, but I think they could fix this problem. If they set the software in the box so that on the day your subscription expires it no longer processes the subscription data there would be a lot less issue. The problem here is they let the system use the old signature data, and that data is useful for a while. The day after a contract expires, you're still getting 99.9% of th benefit, a week later 95%, and so on. They've essentially been too nice in letting the software be leniant with the signature data, and they they pay for it in terms of customer relations when they try to do renew. Do they let customers renew every 13 months, effectively getting one month free each year while they run on old subscription data, or do they play hardball and make them "true up" with a backdated contract. It's really a no-win choice for them. I suspect if someone came in here saying "my Baracuda stopped filtering out spam the day my contract expired" there would be no love for that person, they would be told "yeah, so renew your contract if you want the service to work". While making it stop working may seem less customer friendly, I think it actually ends up more. Everyone knows where they stand, and the poor engineer trying to get his management to renew it now has a nice club to use internally rather than the current "nothing happens if we ignore it, at least in the short term." -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpL3MwQCfWlY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you didn't use (It's a service, and I don't care about their fixed costs, I went into it knowing I'd have a license for the signatures as they were expired), I do understand where they are coming from for software/firmware development. Unfortunately, they don't decouple the two. However, this particular vendor is bad in a market where gear often passes hands or goes lapsed for years. After a certain point (IE: 1 yr), you shouldn't have to true-up. This particular company makes your 3-year lapsed appliance pay for 3 years of missed updates, at which point you might as well just throw it in the garbage. Same thing with my license plates -- if they go for 11 months or less, I have to "true up". If I put a car in storage for over a year, I can purchase a new registration. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, James M Keller wrote: > On 12/21/2011 3:22 PM, David Swafford wrote: > > In my position within the enterprise vertical, backdating to the > > expiration (not the payment date) seems to be the norm. Cisco does > > this on SmartNet, as does SolarWinds and a number of other vendors > > I've worked with. We don't typically slip on the dates intentionally, > > but our procurement and legal groups have a habit of fighting over > > wording on the contracts. > > > > David. > > > > > > Having worked in the past at a shop that sold managed support agreements > for software we sold - the overhead for staffing and code and > blacklisting type data sets are spread out in the yearly support > agreement.A lapsed customer has not funded the delta changes in code > and data set from lapsed data to renewal date, but will get to take > advantage of the work. > While a new customer also will not fund these on a new starting > contract, that is normally considered some cost of acquiring new > business. > > Now in some cases on the other end of the transaction I've found it > cheaper to buy 'new' then it was to 'true up' the support.I haven't > found a vendor that wouldn't go that route, even if it involved getting > some escalation on the sales side first.At that point it's the cost > of customer retention vs new business that the vendor needs to worry > about.However if you are happy with the product, and the renewal > isn't more then 'new' purchases - we all shouldn't be baulking having to > 'true up' contracts. > > -- > --- > James M Keller > > >
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On 12/21/2011 3:22 PM, David Swafford wrote: > In my position within the enterprise vertical, backdating to the > expiration (not the payment date) seems to be the norm. Cisco does > this on SmartNet, as does SolarWinds and a number of other vendors > I've worked with. We don't typically slip on the dates intentionally, > but our procurement and legal groups have a habit of fighting over > wording on the contracts. > > David. > > Having worked in the past at a shop that sold managed support agreements for software we sold - the overhead for staffing and code and blacklisting type data sets are spread out in the yearly support agreement.A lapsed customer has not funded the delta changes in code and data set from lapsed data to renewal date, but will get to take advantage of the work. While a new customer also will not fund these on a new starting contract, that is normally considered some cost of acquiring new business. Now in some cases on the other end of the transaction I've found it cheaper to buy 'new' then it was to 'true up' the support.I haven't found a vendor that wouldn't go that route, even if it involved getting some escalation on the sales side first.At that point it's the cost of customer retention vs new business that the vendor needs to worry about.However if you are happy with the product, and the renewal isn't more then 'new' purchases - we all shouldn't be baulking having to 'true up' contracts. -- --- James M Keller
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
In my position within the enterprise vertical, backdating to the expiration (not the payment date) seems to be the norm. Cisco does this on SmartNet, as does SolarWinds and a number of other vendors I've worked with. We don't typically slip on the dates intentionally, but our procurement and legal groups have a habit of fighting over wording on the contracts. David. On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Edward Dore wrote: > >> On 21 Dec 2011, at 18:46, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: >> In fact, it's not. If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safari books, they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you don't *get* the service between the expire date and the renew date, I concur with his appraisal that you shouldn't be paying for it, either. If in fact, the service *kept working* for a short time when an overlooked payment was missed, it would be a different story. But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated that way. Assuming the paid service is actually *the update service*. I also disagree with your proposition that this is off-topic for NANOG, really. >>> >>> I've always strongly felt that this was a rather foul business practice, >>> wherever I've seen it. The justification for it is the utterly misguided >>> belief that, if allowed to, customers will pay for a month then cancel >>> their subscription and 'coast' on the 'current' version of the signature >>> for a year. This approach suffers from (at least) two fundamental flaws: >>> >>> 1) The entire customer base are treated as hostile. It is no surprise that >>> they resent this. (Assumption: having resentful customers is bad) >>> 2) Spam is, perhaps moreso than ever, a rapidly evolving threat. The >>> effectiveness of signatures declines dramatically with time, which means >>> that August's signatures have little value by December. [By the way, it >>> seems to me that if they're willing to charge for valueless signatures, >>> that represents either A) doubt as to the value of the current signatures, >>> or B) disbelief in the decreasing value of out of date signatures.] >>> >>> While I realize that car insurance might not be the best analogy subject, >>> imagine if you put your car on blocks, went off to college and allowed the >>> insurance to lapse whilst you were there. When you return, the insurance >>> company wants you to pay the last three years of insurance in order to >>> reactivate your policy. That companies customers would react in the same >>> way: they would find a new provider to do business with, rather than pay >>> out for a valueless bit of smoke and mirrors. >>> >>> Nathan Eisenberg >> >> Are you turning your anti-spam appliance off whilst choosing not to pay for >> the maintenance? If not, then I'd argue that a better analogy would be that >> you don't pay for your car insurance but continue to drive your car around >> until you have an accident, at which point you try to take out a new policy >> so that you are covered. >> >> Whilst I can see the argument for the likes of signature updates, where you >> aren't receiving the service in the period that you haven't paid for (unless >> the signature update system is seriously broken), these kind of maintenance >> renewals for appliances normally also include software support and hardware >> repair/replacement. >> >> If the companies don't backdate the maintenance renewal, then you would end >> up with lots of companies only purchasing the maintenance on an ad-hoc basis >> and that will just make the renewals more expensive for those of us that >> actually pay attention to when our subscriptions to due to expire and how >> much they will cost to renew in order accurately predict cash flow. > > > > Besides, treating your customers like thieves and/or forcing disagreeable > conditions on them is all the rage now! Everyone knows they can screw > customers as hard as they like because everyone else is going to screw them > just as hard, and if you aren't screwing them hard enough, well that's just > wasted potential right there! Don't worry about them leaving for another > provider - They all do it! I mean, look at the airlines: Company profits in > the toilet, customer satisfaction so low they're trying to get Congress > involved, crew pay at the lowest on record, and the salaries of the upper > management is the highest in the history of the industry! Just think, if you > screw your customers hard enough, YOU could be NEXT sitting on that huge pile > of cash in the top of your ivory tower pissing down on the public! > > For example, I have a large pile of content that I have paid for but cannot > access anymore because their various copy protection schemes are no longer > supported or no longer run on modern machines. Next to that I have a smaller > but
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Edward Dore wrote: > On 21 Dec 2011, at 18:46, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: > >>> In fact, it's not. If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safari >>> books, >>> they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you don't >>> *get* >>> the service between the expire date and the renew date, I concur with >>> his >>> appraisal that you shouldn't be paying for it, either. >>> >>> If in fact, the service *kept working* for a short time when an >>> overlooked payment was missed, it would be a different story. >>> >>> But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated >>> that way. >>> Assuming the paid service is actually *the update service*. >>> >>> I also disagree with your proposition that this is off-topic for NANOG, >>> really. >> >> I've always strongly felt that this was a rather foul business practice, >> wherever I've seen it. The justification for it is the utterly misguided >> belief that, if allowed to, customers will pay for a month then cancel their >> subscription and 'coast' on the 'current' version of the signature for a >> year. This approach suffers from (at least) two fundamental flaws: >> >> 1) The entire customer base are treated as hostile. It is no surprise that >> they resent this. (Assumption: having resentful customers is bad) >> 2) Spam is, perhaps moreso than ever, a rapidly evolving threat. The >> effectiveness of signatures declines dramatically with time, which means >> that August's signatures have little value by December. [By the way, it >> seems to me that if they're willing to charge for valueless signatures, that >> represents either A) doubt as to the value of the current signatures, or B) >> disbelief in the decreasing value of out of date signatures.] >> >> While I realize that car insurance might not be the best analogy subject, >> imagine if you put your car on blocks, went off to college and allowed the >> insurance to lapse whilst you were there. When you return, the insurance >> company wants you to pay the last three years of insurance in order to >> reactivate your policy. That companies customers would react in the same >> way: they would find a new provider to do business with, rather than pay out >> for a valueless bit of smoke and mirrors. >> >> Nathan Eisenberg > > Are you turning your anti-spam appliance off whilst choosing not to pay for > the maintenance? If not, then I'd argue that a better analogy would be that > you don't pay for your car insurance but continue to drive your car around > until you have an accident, at which point you try to take out a new policy > so that you are covered. > > Whilst I can see the argument for the likes of signature updates, where you > aren't receiving the service in the period that you haven't paid for (unless > the signature update system is seriously broken), these kind of maintenance > renewals for appliances normally also include software support and hardware > repair/replacement. > > If the companies don't backdate the maintenance renewal, then you would end > up with lots of companies only purchasing the maintenance on an ad-hoc basis > and that will just make the renewals more expensive for those of us that > actually pay attention to when our subscriptions to due to expire and how > much they will cost to renew in order accurately predict cash flow. Besides, treating your customers like thieves and/or forcing disagreeable conditions on them is all the rage now! Everyone knows they can screw customers as hard as they like because everyone else is going to screw them just as hard, and if you aren't screwing them hard enough, well that's just wasted potential right there! Don't worry about them leaving for another provider - They all do it! I mean, look at the airlines: Company profits in the toilet, customer satisfaction so low they're trying to get Congress involved, crew pay at the lowest on record, and the salaries of the upper management is the highest in the history of the industry! Just think, if you screw your customers hard enough, YOU could be NEXT sitting on that huge pile of cash in the top of your ivory tower pissing down on the public! For example, I have a large pile of content that I have paid for but cannot access anymore because their various copy protection schemes are no longer supported or no longer run on modern machines. Next to that I have a smaller but increasingly growing stack of content I paid for but REFUSE to access due to provisions hidden in the EULA requiring me to display advertisements and/or install spyware on my computer. You can't read the EULA before purchase and you can't return the purchase for a refund if you refuse the EULA. (That's right, you can sell AD-SUPPORTED software that customers pay FULL RETAIL PRICE for! They whine and complain on the internet, but believe you me, when the next iteration comes out, they'll line up to buy it!) I co
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On 21 Dec 2011, at 18:46, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: >> In fact, it's not. If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safari >> books, >> they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you don't >> *get* >> the service between the expire date and the renew date, I concur with >> his >> appraisal that you shouldn't be paying for it, either. >> >> If in fact, the service *kept working* for a short time when an >> overlooked payment was missed, it would be a different story. >> >> But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated >> that way. >> Assuming the paid service is actually *the update service*. >> >> I also disagree with your proposition that this is off-topic for NANOG, >> really. > > I've always strongly felt that this was a rather foul business practice, > wherever I've seen it. The justification for it is the utterly misguided > belief that, if allowed to, customers will pay for a month then cancel their > subscription and 'coast' on the 'current' version of the signature for a > year. This approach suffers from (at least) two fundamental flaws: > > 1) The entire customer base are treated as hostile. It is no surprise that > they resent this. (Assumption: having resentful customers is bad) > 2) Spam is, perhaps moreso than ever, a rapidly evolving threat. The > effectiveness of signatures declines dramatically with time, which means that > August's signatures have little value by December. [By the way, it seems to > me that if they're willing to charge for valueless signatures, that > represents either A) doubt as to the value of the current signatures, or B) > disbelief in the decreasing value of out of date signatures.] > > While I realize that car insurance might not be the best analogy subject, > imagine if you put your car on blocks, went off to college and allowed the > insurance to lapse whilst you were there. When you return, the insurance > company wants you to pay the last three years of insurance in order to > reactivate your policy. That companies customers would react in the same > way: they would find a new provider to do business with, rather than pay out > for a valueless bit of smoke and mirrors. > > Nathan Eisenberg Are you turning your anti-spam appliance off whilst choosing not to pay for the maintenance? If not, then I'd argue that a better analogy would be that you don't pay for your car insurance but continue to drive your car around until you have an accident, at which point you try to take out a new policy so that you are covered. Whilst I can see the argument for the likes of signature updates, where you aren't receiving the service in the period that you haven't paid for (unless the signature update system is seriously broken), these kind of maintenance renewals for appliances normally also include software support and hardware repair/replacement. If the companies don't backdate the maintenance renewal, then you would end up with lots of companies only purchasing the maintenance on an ad-hoc basis and that will just make the renewals more expensive for those of us that actually pay attention to when our subscriptions to due to expire and how much they will cost to renew in order accurately predict cash flow. Edward Dore Freethought Internet
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On 21 December 2011 13:46, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: > I've always strongly felt that this was a rather foul business practice, > wherever I've seen it. The justification for it is the utterly misguided > belief that, if allowed to, customers will pay for a month then cancel > their subscription and 'coast' on the 'current' version of the signature > for a year. This approach suffers from (at least) two fundamental flaws: > > 1) The entire customer base are treated as hostile. It is no surprise > that they resent this. (Assumption: having resentful customers is bad) > 2) Spam is, perhaps moreso than ever, a rapidly evolving threat. The > effectiveness of signatures declines dramatically with time, which means > that August's signatures have little value by December. [By the way, it > seems to me that if they're willing to charge for valueless signatures, > that represents either A) doubt as to the value of the current signatures, > or B) disbelief in the decreasing value of out of date signatures.] > > While I realize that car insurance might not be the best analogy subject, > imagine if you put your car on blocks, went off to college and allowed the > insurance to lapse whilst you were there. When you return, the insurance > company wants you to pay the last three years of insurance in order to > reactivate your policy. That companies customers would react in the same > way: they would find a new provider to do business with, rather than pay > out for a valueless bit of smoke and mirrors. > > Nathan Eisenberg > Exactly. And when you consider the fact that most anyone can roll their own solution with Postfix, Postgrey, a few RBLs, and Spamassassin that works just as well - if not better than a Barracuda, trying to justify back charging is even more unbelievable.
RE: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
> In fact, it's not. If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safari > books, > they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you don't > *get* > the service between the expire date and the renew date, I concur with > his > appraisal that you shouldn't be paying for it, either. > > If in fact, the service *kept working* for a short time when an > overlooked payment was missed, it would be a different story. > > But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated > that way. > Assuming the paid service is actually *the update service*. > > I also disagree with your proposition that this is off-topic for NANOG, > really. I've always strongly felt that this was a rather foul business practice, wherever I've seen it. The justification for it is the utterly misguided belief that, if allowed to, customers will pay for a month then cancel their subscription and 'coast' on the 'current' version of the signature for a year. This approach suffers from (at least) two fundamental flaws: 1) The entire customer base are treated as hostile. It is no surprise that they resent this. (Assumption: having resentful customers is bad) 2) Spam is, perhaps moreso than ever, a rapidly evolving threat. The effectiveness of signatures declines dramatically with time, which means that August's signatures have little value by December. [By the way, it seems to me that if they're willing to charge for valueless signatures, that represents either A) doubt as to the value of the current signatures, or B) disbelief in the decreasing value of out of date signatures.] While I realize that car insurance might not be the best analogy subject, imagine if you put your car on blocks, went off to college and allowed the insurance to lapse whilst you were there. When you return, the insurance company wants you to pay the last three years of insurance in order to reactivate your policy. That companies customers would react in the same way: they would find a new provider to do business with, rather than pay out for a valueless bit of smoke and mirrors. Nathan Eisenberg
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
- Original Message - > From: "John Peach" > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:36:08 -0600 > "John Palmer \(NANOG Acct\)" wrote: > > > Well look what was in my in-box this morning! Looks like Barracuda > > Networks is sending out spam again. Maybe word is getting around > > about their less that value-full renewal policy. Could it be that > > people are starting to resent being taken advantage of?? > > > > See my response below their message. Seems like they don't remember > > that I was a fish they already hooked and fleeced. > > > [rest of rant snipped] > > This has nothing to do with NANOG and is standard practice in the > software industry anyway. In fact, it's not. If you miss your renewal payment for, frex, Safari books, they actually slip your cycle date to when you renew -- since you don't *get* the service between the expire date and the renew date, I concur with his appraisal that you shouldn't be paying for it, either. If in fact, the service *kept working* for a short time when an overlooked payment was missed, it would be a different story. But, effectively, he's a new client, and should probably be treated that way. Assuming the paid service is actually *the update service*. I also disagree with your proposition that this is off-topic for NANOG, really. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall into their trap again...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:36:08 -0600 "John Palmer \(NANOG Acct\)" wrote: > Well look what was in my in-box this morning! Looks like Barracuda > Networks is sending out spam again. Maybe word is getting around > about their less that value-full renewal policy. Could it be that > people are starting to resent being taken advantage of?? > > See my response below their message. Seems like they don't remember > that I was a fish they already hooked and fleeced. > [rest of rant snipped] This has nothing to do with NANOG and is standard practice in the software industry anyway.
