The biggest problem was they were introducing new servers with similar or better specs than servers existing customers had. And instead of dropping existing customers prices, they kept them static. So a lot of people found themselves looking at a bill 600% higher for the same server just because they were an existing customer. Who in their right mind would pay 6x times more for the same service ?<p>They could stop the customer churn by simply changing the price to match the new offerings.<p>At the time I switched to a new server type I even asked their customer team if the new pricing would be offered to existing customers and the answer was a flat no.
How about simply reduce the rental cost of the older servers to below that of the newer servers? I don't see this mentioned anywhere, isn't it pretty obvious?
I cancelled all my OVH servers, on the high end they are a ripoff and their internal network went to crap recently, it was faster to move files to another country than between 2 HG XXXL servers, go figure<p>I am currently testing the waters on offering 24 and 36 drive storage monsters
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6576796" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6576796</a><p>any feedback is appreciated
"bringing in new customers and new projects which will <i>allow us to increase our business figures</i>"<p>Guys, you need to realize this isn't about getting the balance sheet in the black. There is no legitimate or interesting problem to solve here. They've been deep in the red. Their ultimate goal is to increase revenue figures at <i>all cost</i> and perhaps look "good" for an OK exit. Maybe there isn't more users or market share to grab in their niche. Hence the "thrashing." Their target server count is a million. They've been building DCs left and right with this figure in mind without there being solid sustained demand. I think they've spread themselves too thin.<p>OVH is working hard to acquire as many users as it can for the sole purpose of pleasing investors. And when that becomes any business' only focus...
I too, like many of you find their policies a little strange. Where the entire business world practices reducing prices of older products and replacing them with superior products at old or even slightly <i>higher</i> price points one must wonder the reasoning behind their, "newer must be cheaper than older" strategy where they do not pass on the benefit of the older hardware to the customers.<p>If an existing customer reads that page, and this thread there's just one thing that they will immediately deduce. Existing customers are being used as a subsidizing agent to capture new audience. Which, again is quite strange. In a game theoretic way, this drives the point to existing customers that it is beneficial to not be loyal to the service (i.e. cancel/re-order).<p>If they reduced cost on older hardware while introducing newer one, they could also list those up for sale. Surely people on a budget or people who don't need a Xeon will simply settle for an <i>older</i> Atom at a cheaper price. This also allows OVH to retain and milk the box till its ROI is hopefully achieved.
I'm an OVH customer, and I find this unbelievably bad practice. This rant is a piece of polemic that only serves to legitimise <i>their</i> screw up. Not selling cheap dedi's makes them entirely redundant.
CEO announced on twitter they would have new offers in 10-14 days.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/olesovhcom/status/390557634790973440" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/olesovhcom/status/390557634790973440</a>
It appears to me they have underpriced their servers to the point they can't offset the ratio of existing customers upgrading servers. Seems like they should implement longer term contracts if they want to keep offering these rock bottom prices people keep snatching up. I'll admit looking at their pricing I can see why they sell so many.
>The main competitor of OVH is actually OVH itself. The customer stays with OVH but orders a new server instead of keeping the old one.<p>Interesting problem, and surely not the worst one to have. What would have been a more graceful way to deal with it, though, if any?
Surely if users are flocking to the 'latest and greatest' you deal with that by gradually reducing the prices of the old servers such that you get natural price discrimination?