Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo Offers All-You-Can-Eat Storage and Bandwidth

Lucas123 writes "Yahoo this week opened up a new monthly Web Hosting service for small and medium sized businesses that allows unlimited hosted storage capacity and bandwidth for $11.95 a month. Yahoo had been charging $12 a month for 5GB of disk space and 200GB of bandwidth; $20 a month for 10GB disk space and 400GB of bandwidth; and $40 for 20GB disk space and 500GB bandwidth.."

32 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm. by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting to see a big company like Yahoo try their hand at the "unlimited" marketing game. Anybody who's had experience in the past with any company who offers "unlimited" knows better- Anybody remember Comcast "unlimited" broadband?

    Bunches of online hosting companies offer "unlimited" services with as much space or bandwidth as you need- and all these companies have a disclaimer in their TOS that explains they can't use more than .0001% of their resources. Turns out you can have 500 gb of files, but coincidentally it takes just enough cpu to copy the file that they kick you off. Or some hosting companies go ahead and say it in the TOS- you can't have more than 1% of the alotted bandwidth, other than that it's unlimited!

    Eventually, yes, they get brought down. Law suits, investigations, what have you. They will eventually add their limits to the fine print, just like everybody before them. The catch? Everybody with the host will suffer horrible service up till the day the limit is defined, and after that, it probably won't get much better. That is, if you're not already kicked off their service for using too much of the unlimited service. Anybody not completely disgusted with the service at this point will most likely be offended that their freedom is being taken away and may leave out of protest alone.

    You'd think Yahoo would learn better than start a huge marketing campaign on a service they can't possibly keep profitable. Think about it- Yahoo Music Unlimited just closed! It was a nice idea, except it wasn't making them money! This is a huge PR disaster waiting to happen.

    Let's just take them up on the offer and get rid of them. Somebody call Google and explain to them there's a new host that will host Google's search engine for $12. We'll see how long Yahoo stays unlimited.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:Hmmm. by paintballer1087 · · Score: 4, Funny

      LIES LIES LIES....

      everyone knows that there's no edit button on slashdot

    2. Re:Hmmm. by nmos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You'd think Yahoo would learn better than start a huge marketing campaign on a service they can't possibly keep profitable. Think about it- Yahoo Music Unlimited just closed! It was a nice idea, except it wasn't making them money! This is a huge PR disaster waiting to happen.

      Maybe the two are connected. It could be that closing their music service is leaving them with some extra bandwidth/storage/servers and they'd rather bring in some revenue then let those resources sit idle.

    3. Re:Hmmm. by ThePromenader · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I really didn't understand how they can offer "unlimited" disk space until I read this in their "terms and conditions" (the fine print, whot):

      "You acknowledge that the Web Hosting service is offered as a platform to host and serve web pages and web sites and is not offered for other purposes, such as remote disk space storage. Accordingly, You understand and agree to use the web hosting service solely for the purpose of hosting and serving web pages as viewed through a web browser and the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) or other equivalent technology."

      So in other words, websites and databases (for websites) only (will they police this?). Yet there are companies out there offering unlimited disk space for remote storage, and how they go about this, I have yet to understand. Perhaps something along the same lines as Yahoo's former offering?
      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    4. Re:Hmmm. by Iron+Condor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So in other words, websites and databases (for websites) only (will they police this?).

      Even if they police this, it appears I can now start that web-hosting business I always wanted to start: I'll give you 10TB of storage and 1 TB/month throughput for, say, $1/month. If I can sell that to 13 customers then I'm ahead, right? And I'm a legitimate business, right? So they can't cut me off, right?

      (Since it has to go through HTML, it'll run through some html-based web-management system like plesk, but at the rates I'm offering, how could you say "no"...)

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
  2. How longs it going to last? by roguetrick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will this service continue after Yahoo is bought? Is it just something to cause their price to go up before they are bought by claiming more customers?

    --
    -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    1. Re:How longs it going to last? by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... or they could be trying to create a poison pill scenario that Microsoft will be unwilling to swallow.

  3. Where's CmdrTaco? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey Slashdot admins, are you moving over to Yahoo? I bet that'd cut back on your hosting costs by quite a bit. That'd also be a great test of how truly unlimited it is.

  4. The Quota Super-sizing Trend by 1sockchuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yahoo's move is the inevitable endgame in an ongoing arms race between major shared hosting firms, who have been super-sizing the disk space and data transfer on their accounts for two years. Here's the larger question: Is this just a marketing gimmick; a bright shiny "UNLIMITED" bauble to dangle in front of small business folk? Or is it an effective way to attract customers from HostGator who find that 1,000 gigs of disk space is simply not enough? Almost nobody needs this, but some might be influenced by it.

    1. Re:The Quota Super-sizing Trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is this just a marketing gimmick; a bright shiny "UNLIMITED" bauble to dangle in front of small business folk?

      I'll let you judge, let's take one of those supersized shared hosts, which offers up to 750GB of disk space. In the ToS however, I find an interesting clause that says, paraphrasing: "750GB, but no more than 5GB archives, no more than 5GB of media files, no more than 5GB of data files or programs, no more than 5GB for SQL data dumps".

      So, I went to chat with the support, and ask, what the hell I'm going to use then those 750GB for? Names and domains replaced, since, no need to single out either one of them (they're all the same anyway). Here's our conversation:

      ------------

      Support Guy1: Hello

      Support Guy1: Welcome to XXXXXXX Hosting Services!

      ME: Hello, please clarify your ToS: "NO more than 5,000 MB of a Linux shared hosting account can be allocated to Executable files and all other files which are the result of compiling a program. These include but are not limited to .exe, .pdf, .psd files."

      ME: PDF and PSD files are not compiled programs

      Support Guy1: yes they are not but they are considered as applications

      ME: why does XXXXXXX put limitations on the meaning of the bytes I use on my eventual account

      Support Guy1: Could you please hold on a second so that I can transfer you to one of our experienced senior sales assistants for better assistance :)

      ME: ok

      This chat session has been transfered to Support Guy2 [sales]

      Support Guy2: Hello

      ME: hello, can you please explain the rationale behind XXXXXXX putting limitations on the meaning of the bytes I use on my eventual account

      Support Guy2: Well of course - on our shared hosting accounts there are a lot of users and in order to maintain optimal performance we have to limit some of the file types stored on the server.

      ME: can you explain how does it differ performance-wise to store 5MB of an mpeg and 5MB of an SQL file.

      Support Guy2: Well the limits are far wider than 5 MB - they are actually 5 GB - so you can store 5 Gigs MPEGs total :)

      Support Guy2: in regards to the SQL files - you can have as big file as you wish, as long as it does not load the server :)

      ME: I realize, it's an example :) make it X MB of mpeg and X MB of SQL

      ME: if I don't serve those files, would that section of the ToS apply to me

      Support Guy2: Well if you do not use those kind of files, you should disregard this line in the TOS, since it does not apply for you :)

      Support Guy2: May I just ask what do you plan to host?

      ME: can I quote you on this, if I store 6GB of mpegs for example, and not serve them, and I find my account suspended

      Support Guy2: Well I fear we have missed each other in the line... You cannot have more than 5 GB total multimedia files on the shared hosting account. In case you have 6, you should find an alternative solution like a VPS or a dedicated server.

      ME: but you offer 750GB of storage, can you please supply one example what do your customers use 750GB for, if not for media files, archives, executables, dumps and data files

      Support Guy2: Well you can have combinations of files plus other file types that are not limited like txt files.

      ME: I can have 750GB of txt files?

      Support Guy2: We do not apply a direct limitation on the txt files, but still may I ask you what do you plan to host on our servers? Like what kind of website do you plan to have and how large would it be so that I can help you with the most optimal plan :)

      ME: I don't see limitations on the kind of site I can host in the ToS

      ME: except for pornography,

  5. "Unlimited" my ass by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Dear Yahoo,

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:"Unlimited" my ass by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Yahoo,

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

      Dear elrous0

      You keep misquoting that movie. I do not think it means what you think it banana.
    2. Re:"Unlimited" my ass by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You killed my bandwidth, prepare to die.

  6. All you can eat? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Funny

    3 months later, an upset Yahoo Exec was overheard saying,

    Tis no man, tis a remorseless eating machine.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  7. Unlimited is easy.... when you redefine unlimited. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  8. Re:Small and medium businesses? by paitre · · Score: 4, Informative

    This won't meet the needs of large businesses.

    not even remotely.

    And these are -explicitly- shared hosting accounts, and there are some restrictions - including how quickly you can grow your disk usage, and if you are using too much bandwidth you'll be flagged. Another is that they explicitly are saying that it's not to be used as a datawarehousing resource.

    All things that a large business is going to want to do.

  9. Unlimited? by WK2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, is this unlimited, or "Comcast Unlimited (TM)"?

    Yahoo's service has been going downhill for years, and now Microsoft is going to be running things. I can imagine some arbitrary restrictions, or "random" failures, that makes this service not so great. Unlimited bandwidth is nice, but if your pages take 20 seconds to render because the download speed is 128K/s, or if it takes 1 week to upload 100 Gigs, it stops looking so good.

    Don't get me wrong, I haven't tried this service, and it sounds great. I just wouldn't give my hopes up.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  10. One size fits all by rastoboy29 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing that annoys me about most hosting plans is that they scale up disk space and bandwith together--as if one inevitably follows the other.  For example, I have a miniscule website that hosts a ~200 meg game download.  So I need a whopping ~300 megs of disk space.  But when I get a spike of downloads, I can hit several gigs of bandwith per day.  But I would have to purchase additional "disk space" along with bandwidth if I were going with a traditional hosting plan.

    Annoying.

    1. Re:One size fits all by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, maybe you shouldn't go with a "traditional" hosting plan. Find a web hosting company like us (or, frankly, many others) who let you add bandwidth to your hosting account on a monthly basis. So in theory, you could have an account with 5gb of disk space and 10 terabytes of bandwidth...

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    2. Re:One size fits all by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just want 1 bit and 10 tera-bytes of bandwidth. I'm working on a new distribution system

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. It's a gimmick by Dekortage · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most small business sites will never use even 100gb of data. We offer shared hosting at ~$15/month for 200GB disk, 2tb bandwidth, and of our customers who use it, most could downgrade to cheaper accounts ($8? $4.50?) without a problem**. Yahoo knows this about its own customers, too, so this is likely a gimmick to give the impression of a "deal" while knowing most people won't actually consume much. Also note this quote from Yahoo's unlimited email FAQ: "The purpose of unlimited storage isn't to provide an online storage warehouse. Usage that suggests this approach gets flagged by Yahoo! Business Email's anti-abuse controls." Or, elsewhere in the help system:

    So what does "unlimited" mean, really?

    Disk space:
    You can now create as large a site as you like (you won't face an upper limit, or "ceiling"), but we will place some constraints on how fast you can grow. In other words, you can add as much content as you want, but maybe not all at once. The vast majority of our customers' sites grow at rates well within our rules, however, and will not be impacted by this constraint.

    Data transfer:
    In most cases, if you use our service appropriately, visitors to your web site will be able to download and view as much content from your site as they like. However, in certain circumstances, our server processing power, server memory, or anti-abuse controls could limit downloads from your site.

    You can also upload as much as content as you like each month, subject only to the rules that control how fast your site can grow (see above).

    OK. What exactly is that speed of growth?

    (**Yes, I realize that some Arrow Bay customers are reading this. Check your disk and bandwidth usage: if it's always significantly under what you're paying for, consider downgrading to the next package for your next billing cycle. Seriously.)

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:It's a gimmick by mxs · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Hi,

      Most small business sites will never use even 100gb of data. Thanks for stating the obvious.

      We (spamlink)

      offer shared hosting at ~$15/month for 200GB disk, 2tb bandwidth, That sounds impressive.

      How about $8 for 500gb of disk and 5tb of bandwidth ? Or even 8tb of bandwidth or 700gb, if you get the right promocode ? Dream host..ing ? (this is what a professional calls "surreptitious advertising", just in case you wanted a contrast to your spamlink). There are some people competing in a lunar-cyclish page way, and HOSTs drinking GATORade are out there as well.

      and of our customers who use it, most could downgrade to cheaper accounts ($8? $4.50?) without a problem**. Wow, that sounds reasonable, especially your recommendation to downgrade after the stars. Heartfelt, even.
      Say, why don't you automatically downgrade those people if they are below usage, and automatically upgrade them to the next-higher tier when they exceed their limits ? Now that would be service. I'm sure some companies offer it.

      Yahoo knows this about its own customers, too, so this is likely a gimmick to give the impression of a "deal" while knowing most people won't actually consume much. Also note this quote from Yahoo's unlimited email FAQ: "The purpose of unlimited storage isn't to provide an online storage warehouse. Usage that suggests this approach gets flagged by Yahoo! Business Email's anti-abuse controls." Yupp, and I especially like that kind of language. You neglect to mention, of course, that Arrow Bay's (limited) service actually contains teh same kind of language :

      You shall at all times use the Services as a conventional and/or traditional web site. You shall not use the Service in any way, in Arrow Bay's sole discretion, that shall impair the functioning or operation of Arrow Bay's Services or equipment. Specifically by way of example and not as a limitation, You shall not use the Services as (i) a repository or instrument for placing or storing archived files, and/or (ii) placing or storing material that can be downloaded through other web sites. So if somebody actually were to use the storage provided in full as a webdav-drive, or as historic storage, or actually as an archive of any kind, you can just terminate them and move on. The terms "traditional" and "conventional" are not defined. Is a site hosting 200gigs of home videos "traditional" ? Is it "conventional" ? How about a site that makes available collections of data ?
      Certain dreamy hosts have changed their "interpretation" of their ToS in that way recently, as well. If anybody ever sells you any hosting service with > 20 gb of disk space, you can be all but certain that they really only mean "in theory", never "in practice".

      Oh, do you know where I found that package ? Not near the limits. Not at all near the limits. You first go to the legal terms of service, then search another link way down on the page, then scroll way down (it's the second to last paragraph). That seems really open and honest. Really.
  12. Re:Unlimited is easy.... when you redefine unlimit by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think there is something missing within their service terms, like numbers. Okay, so you might not be able to grow as fast you want, well, before I sign on the dotted line, how fast CAN I grow?What happens to people who exceed this amount? Bounce to a higher rate plan, get charged extra for the extra growth?
    I think Yahoo is just the latest company to cash in on the "hidden a-la-carte" fee structure. Just like cell phone plans, "Free checking" and just about every other "flat rate service", you can no longer tell in advance what you are going to get charged for something, and every time you tear open a bill, you know there is a good chance that it is going to be 50% higher than the month before because of some obscure item buried deep in the fine print.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  13. Re:Small and medium businesses? by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And these are -explicitly- shared hosting accounts, and there are some restrictions - including how quickly you can grow your disk usage, and if you are using too much bandwidth you'll be flagged.


    Heh. "Unlimited bandwidth", but if you use "too much" you'll be "flagged". IOW, Yahoo! has just joined the long-tradition of "unlimited" hosting services where "unlimited" means "we won't tell you up front what the limits are, but they sure exist, and you'll sure be nailed for breaking them."

    Better off getting an account where the limits are disclosed, and you can pay to get them raised.
  14. Dreamhost by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Storage space has been a big issue of contention on Dreamhost as well. I signed up for their service, feeling happy that I had 500G of remote storage to use as I pleased. It turned out it wasn't that simple.

    Unlimited sounds great, until you start using a large amount of space and Yahoo has to find some reason to say that you're not complying with their terms of service.

  15. Why now? by ghjm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Yahoo isn't the smartest kid on the block, but they aren't *that* dumb. Nobody with a vague clue offers "unlimited" bandwidth or storage. And Yahoo has a vague clue.

    2. Isn't it funny that they did this right after the Microsoft takeover offer?

    It's possible that this was already in the works and has nothing to do with MS. But it's just so self-evidently stupid that I wonder if senior executives were involved. What's the strategic angle? Do they now accept an MS takeover as inevitable, and want to discredit MS as much as possible post-takeover (because it will be MSHoo, not Yahoo, who gets sued over the "unlimited" claims)? Or are they hoping to attract so many unprofitable bandwidth leeches that their service becomes undesirable and MS loses interest? Or is there a more subtle angle to this?

    -Graham

  16. Haham way to shiv Microsoft. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    heh.
    Oh, your going to buy us? thats great, here's the keys. BTW, we have ten million people using unlimited bandwidth and storage. Good luck.

    The next day every geek int he land is putting up and pulling off 10s of gigs of files.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. Unlimited bandwidth is cheap for Yahoo to deliver by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Keep in mind that Yahoo can deliver unlimited bandwidth much cheaper than a hosting company can. You have to keep in mind that Yahoo has an expansive network and they are doing settlement-free peering with all of the Tier 1 ISP's, as well as anyone else who happens to be hooked up to a common peering point. Hell, even at our regional hosting center we're connected to a peering point and we peer directly with Yahoo, bypassing the Internet.

    The point is that all that bandwidth doesn't cost Yahoo nearly as much as a traditional hosting provider would have to pay for it.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  18. Re:Anyone remember Netcom? by morcego · · Score: 4, Insightful

    back. Dial-up pretty much was forced away from a per hour rate to a flat $20 fee for unlimited. And the whole industry was moved to a $15-$25 price point.


    This is not a good example, since dial-up usage doesn't scale very much. You only have 24 hours/day, and your bandwidth is no more than 56k.

    So, you see, if your average user stays connected 3 hours/day, the heavy user will only use 8x time amount. Now, if you consider broadband and your average users transfer 2GB/month, a heavy user will easily transfer 400GB/month. Thats 200 times more. And according to a quick calculation here (could be wrong), it is theoretically possible for a user to use 1.3TB/month on a 4Mbps connection (note: actually bandwidth usage, including protocol overhead etc).

    If you consider webhosting, things get even worst. An average user will store 500MB, and transfer 2GB/month (if that). While a heavy user can easily reach 500GB and transfer 2TB/month. In both cases, 1000 times more (or 1024, if you like).

    Unlimited can easily become a real nightmare.
    --
    morcego
  19. Unlimited == Undetermined by Traa · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting/unlimited/

    Lots of disclaimers. No hard numbers. Definitely nothing to do with unlimited.

  20. Re:Timing by Gazzonyx · · Score: 3, Funny

    They already are moving into this area.

    What do you think they're building all those shiny new datacenters for? Heating? When I need to warm up my apartment, I just pull a 500Gb drive for a moment and then put it back in and warm up while my RAID 5 rebuilds. :P
    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  21. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC by fulldecent · · Score: 3, Funny



    Looks like we just solved W3C's problem.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch