The Markeplace Discussion (Split)

[electric]

Paul, Cody and Tyson know what's best for business and want to provide the best billing system they can offer, they won't ever go down that route, I know this because people asked this in the Beta period and Paul said they wouldn't go down the HB route. 

I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your opinion, but I would prefer to have this assurance directly from Blesta than from a customer.    I've been in business a long time, and seen a lot of things.  Without the direct word of someone in Blesta management, this is a risk I must continue to consider and try to mitigate.

 

 

Paul, Cody and Tyson know what's best for business and want to provide the best billing system they can offer,

 

I would argue that "what is best for business" is to actually sell their modules individually.  Blesta core is created with a fantastic ability to have a marketplace of drop-in modules.  I see no reason why Blesta wouldn't submit their own modules to compete in that marketplace.  If they include a few basic modules with the core product, then they are somewhat obligated to develop them... but there is little incentive to continue really developing those modules to make them best in their class since there is no additional funding for them.  

 

So I would argue that charging extra for their non-core modules is a good business decision for both the company and consumer, since the company gets more revenue specific to that module, and we (consumer) get more active development of the modules we've purchased.

 

For example... let's say Blesta includes the core product and three modules -- cPanel, Support and KB.   Not everyone needs either the Support and/or KB module and/or Cpanel module.  So this means that:

 

- 1. Consumer is paying for things they don't want or need.

- 2. Blesta is being paid for something the consumer isn't going to use.

- 3. Blesta must support and continue development of all three modules, since they are "included" in the basic package.  There is no additional revenue for them, but yet they must spend time/development effort on all of them.  What are the odds that every "included" module is going to be best of class when compared to the (hopefully eventual) module marketplace? 

- With #3 in mind, if the included module isn't best-in-class.. you are likely to purchase the best one anyway.  So now you've spent more $$ on something that perhaps would have been better to just go to Blesta to begin with.

 

I think the better business setup is to sell Blesta core product, and then individual modules as add-ons.  This sort of structure makes a lot of sense when you consider how many different control panels there are, domain registrars, payment processors, and other plugins are needed by so many different customers.  The big advtantage of this setup is that Blesta gets paid for continuing development of their core code, and individual revenue that justifies development of individual modules.  Customers get the advantage of purchasing only what they need.  If it's done correctly (not like hostbill), then the pricing would work out pretty much the same for everyone, but it's a much more sustainable business structure.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[electric]

It's also worth considering how things work in the module marketplace that I presume Blesta wants to establish and promote and prosper.  Well... any developer is going to think twice if they feel they will be competing against Blesta directly.

 

For example, what is the point to spend time and effort to develop a nice KB module when Blesta is going to include one in the core product?  Even if it's not as nice as a 3rd party KB module, the vast majority of people will simply not bother changing.  This runs counter-intuitive to fostering a marketplace of modules, where you want a lot of developers to participate.  They won't unless there is $$ involved.  (Well, I should clarify... the GOOD developers won't.)

 

Ditto for an enom module. If Blesta is going to develop their own included module, then why should ModulesGarden create their own?   If the Blesta included enom module is "meh"... then it's still going to be ok for most people, and now blesta devs are forced to continue development of a module that few are happy with but everyone uses...  now multiple that by every "included" control panel, payment gateway, registrar, etc..

 

I think it makes more sense to lower the cost of Blesta core a little bit and then charge for each module the customer desires.  Then there will be nice competition in the module marketplace, including from Blesta themselves.  This grows the business of Blesta, since it's the core product and presumably they will strive for best-in-class module development, too.

 

Honestly, I was a little surprised that Blesta didn't release this way from the start, which is why I am seeking clarification and confirmation now.  I think it's inevitable, since I can't understand otherwise why Blesta was created with the whole concept of "modularity" as a central point. 

[Michael]

I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your opinion, but I would prefer to have this assurance directly from Blesta than from a customer.    I've been in business a long time, and seen a lot of things.  Without the direct word of someone in Blesta management, this is a risk I must continue to consider and try to mitigate.

 

 

 

I would argue that "what is best for business" is to actually sell their modules individually.  Blesta core is created with a fantastic ability to have a marketplace of drop-in modules.  I see no reason why Blesta wouldn't submit their own modules to compete in that marketplace.  If they include a few basic modules with the core product, then they are somewhat obligated to develop them... but there is little incentive to continue really developing those modules to make them best in their class since there is no additional funding for them.  

 

So I would argue that charging extra for their non-core modules is a good business decision for both the company and consumer, since the company gets more revenue specific to that module, and we (consumer) get more active development of the modules we've purchased.

 

For example... let's say Blesta includes the core product and three modules -- cPanel, Support and KB.   Not everyone needs either the Support and/or KB module and/or Cpanel module.  So this means that:

 

- 1. Consumer is paying for things they don't want or need.

- 2. Blesta is being paid for something the consumer isn't going to use.

- 3. Blesta must support and continue development of all three modules, since they are "included" in the basic package.  There is no additional revenue for them, but yet they must spend time/development effort on all of them.  What are the odds that every "included" module is going to be best of class when compared to the (hopefully eventual) module marketplace? 

- With #3 in mind, if the included module isn't best-in-class.. you are likely to purchase the best one anyway.  So now you've spent more $$ on something that perhaps would have been better to just go to Blesta to begin with.

 

I think the better business setup is to sell Blesta core product, and then individual modules as add-ons.  This sort of structure makes a lot of sense when you consider how many different control panels there are, domain registrars, payment processors, and other plugins are needed by so many different customers.  The big advtantage of this setup is that Blesta gets paid for continuing development of their core code, and individual revenue that justifies development of individual modules.  Customers get the advantage of purchasing only what they need.  If it's done correctly (not like hostbill), then the pricing would work out pretty much the same for everyone, but it's a much more sustainable business structure.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

I'm not just a customer though? I'm a distributor of their product. And they aren't competing with HB or Whm** they are making a unique product to eat up a market which is falling. People need a stable billing system whether it be webhosting or another industry, which is why they have it so you install the modules / plugins you want, not installing everything as default.

[Michael]

It's also worth considering how things work in the module marketplace that I presume Blesta wants to establish and promote and prosper.  Well... any developer is going to think twice if they feel they will be competing against Blesta directly.

 

For example, what is the point to spend time and effort to develop a nice KB module when Blesta is going to include one in the core product?  Even if it's not as nice as a 3rd party KB module, the vast majority of people will simply not bother changing.  This runs counter-intuitive to fostering a marketplace of modules, where you want a lot of developers to participate.  They won't unless there is $$ involved.  (Well, I should clarify... the GOOD developers won't.)

 

Ditto for an enom module. If Blesta is going to develop their own included module, then why should ModulesGarden create their own?   If the Blesta included enom module is "meh"... then it's still going to be ok for most people, and now blesta devs are forced to continue development of a module that few are happy with but everyone uses...  now multiple that by every "included" control panel, payment gateway, registrar, etc..

 

I think it makes more sense to lower the cost of Blesta core a little bit and then charge for each module the customer desires.  Then there will be nice competition in the module marketplace, including from Blesta themselves.  This grows the business of Blesta, since it's the core product and presumably they will strive for best-in-class module development, too.

 

Honestly, I was a little surprised that Blesta didn't release this way from the start, which is why I am seeking clarification and confirmation now.  I think it's inevitable, since I can't understand otherwise why Blesta was created with the whole concept of "modularity" as a central point. 

 

Because you choose which one you wish to use. You might like the way someone did a module, you might like the extra features someone might have in their module. That's why they are encouraging developers. I believe Paul said they might be doing a prize for the best module / plugin in the news letter, etc. They want a community active product.

[Ken]

I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your opinion, but I would prefer to have this assurance directly from Blesta than from a customer.    I've been in business a long time, and seen a lot of things.  Without the direct word of someone in Blesta management, this is a risk I must continue to consider and try to mitigate.

 

Yea but you're comparing apples and oranges.  Blesta has been for a while and a lot longer than Hostbill unless I'm mistaken?  But if you look at Blesta's track record I think you'll find it very consistent, careful, and complete.  Unlike Hostbill who has been sporadic since day one.  So I don't think CubicWebs is trying to push his opinion on you but rather instill some confidence from their core users that they haven't really displayed that kind of behavior.

As far as you wanting an indefinite price guarantee I want you to show me what company would do or say that?  If they have any pricing model changes they will let you know well in the advance.  Unlike HostBill who is focused on selling modules and not doing much with the billing system, Blesta is billing system focused and their modules are a part of it's evolution.  Then there are 3rd party modules on the marketplace.  Of course these things will need some maturity as v3 just came out.  But I'm personally glad that I'm ahead of the curve as I like the simplicity at the moment.  It's made transitioning very easy for many.

[electric]

Because you choose which one you wish to use. You might like the way someone did a module, you might like the extra features someone might have in their module. That's why they are encouraging developers. I believe Paul said they might be doing a prize for the best module / plugin in the news letter, etc. They want a community active product.

There is very little incentive for module developers like ModuleGarden to create an eNom module or KB module or any module that exists as an "included" part of Blesta core.  Sure, there might be a few amateur attempts, but high-quality developers do not work for free.  If they aren't going to get paid for their work, then they aren't going to participate in the blesta module marketplace.

 

For example, if Blesta decides they want to include something similar to the new "extended cpanel" that modulesgarden just released...  I think that even if the blesta version is only 75% or 80% as nice, it will result in virtually zero sales for modulesgarden.  Most people will just say, "I've already paid for it, so it's good enough". This negates the whole point of modulesgarden and other developers to participate.  It's a big risk for them, unless they only develop modules that are really unlikely to later be included in the Blesta core. 

 

Ultimately, what the consumer wants is a billing / customer management system that is reasonably priced and easy to understand and use.  I think Blesta can readily achieve both those goals with a core+marketplace system as I have suggested.  Despite my opinion of its owner, Hostbill is a great example of this, but their pricing is crazy.  If they had realistic pricing for their individual order pages and modules, I have little doubt they could quickly rule the marketplace (and IF their owner was not also crazy, which makes the whole software a no-go.)  The idea of purchasing only what you need is very attractive.

 

Also, from Blesta's point of view... every new module they "include" in the core product must be continually developed forever, with no additional revenue.  Or they can increase their yearly fee, but then consumers like me might start feeling resentful that prices are increasing because of logicboxes module development when I don't even need that.

 

But my real concern is, as I mentioned, that the module marketplace Blesta wants to promote isn't going to get off the ground and supported by serious high-quality developers unless there is some incentive for them.  (Money)  For example, I have little doubt that modulesgarden would develop a very nice eNom module if they knew it would not compete directly with an "included" eNom module from Blesta. Heck, I might even sponsor an eNom module myself if I thought I could sell it head-to-head against a module from Blesta.  But if they "include" it into the core product?  No way.

[Michael]

There is very little incentive for module developers like ModuleGarden to create an eNom module or KB module or any module that exists as an "included" part of Blesta core.  Sure, there might be a few amateur attempts, but high-quality developers do not work for free.  If they aren't going to get paid for their work, then they aren't going to participate in the blesta module marketplace.

 

For example, if Blesta decides they want to include something similar to the new "extended cpanel" that modulesgarden just released...  I think that even if the blesta version is only 75% or 80% as nice, it will result in virtually zero sales for modulesgarden.  Most people will just say, "I've already paid for it, so it's good enough". This negates the whole point of modulesgarden and other developers to participate.  It's a big risk for them, unless they only develop modules that are really unlikely to later be included in the Blesta core. 

 

Ultimately, what the consumer wants is a billing / customer management system that is reasonably priced and easy to understand and use.  I think Blesta can readily achieve both those goals with a core+marketplace system as I have suggested.  Despite my opinion of its owner, Hostbill is a great example of this, but their pricing is crazy.  If they had realistic pricing for their individual order pages and modules, I have little doubt they could quickly rule the marketplace (and IF their owner was not also crazy, which makes the whole software a no-go.)  The idea of purchasing only what you need is very attractive.

 

Also, from Blesta's point of view... every new module they "include" in the core product must be continually developed forever, with no additional revenue.  Or they can increase their yearly fee, but then consumers like me might start feeling resentful that prices are increasing because of logicboxes module development when I don't even need that.

 

But my real concern is, as I mentioned, that the module marketplace Blesta wants to promote isn't going to get off the ground and supported by serious high-quality developers unless there is some incentive for them.  (Money)  For example, I have little doubt that modulesgarden would develop a very nice eNom module if they knew it would not compete directly with an "included" eNom module from Blesta. Heck, I might even sponsor an eNom module myself if I thought I could sell it head-to-head against a module from Blesta.  But if they "include" it into the core product?  No way.

 

You don't get Blesta do you? ModulesGarden did their addon like their WHM** module most of the features are in WHM** already except the FTP / SSL / Emails / Etc via the client area, ModulesGarden script also works around Softaculous and others that most billing systems won't have. I don't think blesta would do that, if anything they'd have the options when making a cPanel package, like other billing systems.

 

The marketplace is where most plugins from Blesta (License Managerment, Project Management, and other Blesta modules / Plugins) Plus developers / designers who make themes and plugins. They can sell their modules / products though the Blesta marketplace or release free products. There will be a Verified title which will be a paid service and Blesta will look though the code and ensure it's to Blesta's standards.

 

Blesta make money by people buying their software, monthly licenses / owned licenses / Lifetime licenses / renewals for support & updates / Extra Plugins & Modules / custom work / and more.

 

I do see your point though but Blesta isn't another HB.

[electric]

Yea but you're comparing apples and oranges.  Blesta has been for a while and a lot longer than Hostbill unless I'm mistaken? 

Blesta v3 is brand new. The company has been around for a while, but v3 was specifically designed to be modular.  My assumption was that this is because they wanted to create an active module marketplace.  That's tough to do if there is no monetary incentive for good developers to compete against Blesta themselves.

 

Unlike Hostbill who has been sporadic since day one.  ....CubicWebs is trying to push his opinion on you but rather instill some confidence from their core users that they haven't really displayed that kind of behavior.

Hostbill has been around for a few years, too. It wasn't until a short while ago that the owner went crazy.

 

As far as you wanting an indefinite price guarantee

 

 I am not asking for a price guarantee (although that would be nice if they offered, but I would not believe it anyway, since it's a sure sign of lack of long-term business foresight.)  What I am asking for is an understanding into the intentions of Blesta with regard to their module marketplace, and if they will be splitting out the development/sales of their currently "included" modules at a later time.  I am asking about this, because I really don't understand why they spent so much time and effort to make the core product modular, and then they include all the modules people really need, thereby negating any reason for serious developers to create their own modules and try to compete (and make money).

 

... Blesta is billing system focused and their modules are a part of it's evolution.  Then there are 3rd party modules on the marketplace. 

 

See, this is where I disagree.  For example, I am considering to use Blesta to manage some software that I sell which needs licensing.  It has nothing to do with web hosting.  So why should I be paying for cpanel and other control panel development that is included in core Blesta? Or what about the datacenters that will want to use blesta to manage their facility but don't need anything like registrar domain name integration? 

 

I guess what I 'm saying is that I thought the Blesta guys were building a billing and customer mgmt. software that could be used for *anything*, including web hosting, with the simple addition of modules to add desired functionality.   So I'm confused as to why they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot (imho) by including hosting control panel modules, gateway modules, etc.. which they must now support and develop forever, with no additional revenue, and essentially stopping good quality developers from participating in a module marketplace for any modules that are "included" in the core product.

[Michael]

Blesta v3 is brand new. The company has been around for a while, but v3 was specifically designed to be modular.  My assumption was that this is because they wanted to create an active module marketplace.  That's tough to do if there is no monetary incentive for good developers to compete against Blesta themselves.

 

Hostbill has been around for a few years, too. It wasn't until a short while ago that the owner went crazy.

 

 

 I am not asking for a price guarantee (although that would be nice if they offered, but I would not believe it anyway, since it's a sure sign of lack of long-term business foresight.)  What I am asking for is an understanding into the intentions of Blesta with regard to their module marketplace, and if they will be splitting out the development/sales of their currently "included" modules at a later time.  I am asking about this, because I really don't understand why they spent so much time and effort to make the core product modular, and then they include all the modules people really need, thereby negating any reason for serious developers to create their own modules and try to compete (and make money).

 

 

See, this is where I disagree.  For example, I am considering to use Blesta to manage some software that I sell which needs licensing.  It has nothing to do with web hosting.  So why should I be paying for cpanel and other control panel development that is included in core Blesta? Or what about the datacenters that will want to use blesta to manage their facility but don't need anything like registrar domain name integration? 

 

I guess what I 'm saying is that I thought the Blesta guys were building a billing and customer mgmt. software that could be used for *anything*, including web hosting, with the simple addition of modules to add desired functionality.   So I'm confused as to why they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot (imho) by including hosting control panel modules, gateway modules, etc.. which they must now support and develop forever, with no additional revenue, and essentially stopping good quality developers from participating in a module marketplace for any modules that are "included" in the core product.

 

Right I hope Paul doesn't mind me doing this but since you've not been following Blesta here you go:

 

 

Blesta v3 was designed with a major emphasis on developers. We know that when others can easily write their own extensions on our platform and make powerful new features available to the market, it makes our product that much better.

We expect a lot of these 3rd party extensions will serve niche markets, and others will compete directly with or extend functionality we’ve built.

With all we’ve done to support developers, the issue becomes about getting their hard work in front of Blesta users. By no means have we created a closed system that forces a particular distribution channel. Our focus is the user experience, and what we’ve built is right up that alley. It’s much easier when users can find extensions quickly and easily, see ratings and feedback from others, and install with a click of the mouse.. all within the application.

So, we built The Marketplace.

The Marketplace is built right into Blesta and should be available at launch. Developers can list their extensions on The Marketplace if they like. It’s not a requirement and extensions can be installed manually but we think the exposure and ease of installation makes it the right place to be.

We’ll have a lot more on The Marketplace in the future, so stay tuned.

If all goes according to plan this next week, I may have another video for you on the client area!

Quoted from the Blesta Blog: http://www.blesta.com/2012/10/05/blesta-3-0-the-marketplace/

[electric]

You don't get Blesta do you? ...

 

I do see your point though but Blesta isn't another HB.

I think the hostbill system of sales is pretty good, actually.  It's just the pricing and the owner that are nuts.  But the concept of having a "core code" that handles the billing functionality, and then selling individual modules to add actual useful functionality is very smart.  (Not smart is that hostbill doesn't allow 3rd party modules to be created.)

 

So what I envisioned, and thought Blesta would have, is something like this:

 

1.  Blesta core code.  $xxx including $xx recurring yearly fee.

2.  Marketplace where you can search and purchase modules to add desired functionality, including order pages, registar integration, gateways, control panels, license methods, whatever.  Pricing would be in the $x and $xx range, either one-off or with small recurring fee.

 

The end result, with regard to pricing would be exactly the same total amount as what we see now the Blesta package being sold.  Functionally, it would also be the same, since all the modules included with Blesta are just modules that can be added/removed. There would be no difference software-wise as we have now.

 

So then, from the consumer standpoint we would still have the same pricing, but we would have a totally open and highly competitive module marketplace.  This would promote active development from high quality developers who want to make some money.

[Ken]

I hear your concerns and they will too, electric.  But I think you're overthinking their intentions with free modules.

 

You're worried about a monopoly so to speak even though you're not directly saying it.  But that's not consistent with them giving away 93% of their code and implementing an open marketplace.  This discussion could go on forever.    But the fact that we have such a diverse opinion and needs to me proves that there will be plenty of opportunity for 3rd party modules.  Blesta can't keep up with the development of several companies on several products.  I just don't see it.

 

Don't worry so much.  Take it day by day, and if you're worried about Blesta charging for modules in the future then just expect it.  The worst that'll happen is you'll have been right.

[electric]

Don't worry so much.  Take it day by day, and if you're worried about Blesta charging for modules in the future then just expect it.  The worst that'll happen is you'll have been right.

That's a good point.  One very nice thing that I have seen over the past year as I've watched Blesta, is that Blesta management is very open and honest.  It's what initially convinced me to purchase a license even before v3 was finished, and evangelize about Blesta to other people.  And it's what makes me impatient and want to move to Blesta now, even though it doesn't have the necessary functionality just yet for my business.

 

So while I'm reasonably confident they'll eventually move to a true marketplace as I've described, and remove the "extra" stuff from the core product into individual saleable modules... I think they will be ethical and upfront about it, and they will not screw existing license holders.  ie: Anyone who has an existing license would be entitled to a free license of every individual module that is removed from the core, including updates.  I can't see Paul et al doing it any other way.

 

[Paul]

I just wanted to chime in on the module / marketplace discussion. I'll admit that I only read about 75% of the responses, as they were quite lengthy but I think I have a good understanding. If there's anything you want me to clarify, or think I overlooked, please let me know.

 

1. We want to support 3rd party developers as best as we can. We can't build everything for every niche. We are also aware that these developers have a financial incentive to build modules that we won't turn around and build ourselves. We can't guarantee this will never happen, but if there is any question, we encourage developers to ask us. We'll be as honest as possible about our future plans. Using ModulesGarden as an example, it's highly unlikely we'll develop an extended cPanel module anytime soon with the functionality they have built in because a) it already exists at a reasonable price, it fills the demand, and c) there are other areas of demand we can focus our efforts to move forward. Us building a cPanel extended module now would be a lateral move, and take away from much needed forward momentum.

 

2. We have partially built "The Marketplace", which is intended to be a marketplace of extensions for Blesta by 3rd party developers, and, at times, ourselves. When this is ready, 3rd party developers will be able to list their free and paid extensions in the marketplace.

 

3. There are 3 types of extensions we will develop. a) free and included in the core, free and available through the marketplace, and c) paid. We will never take our free modules, and start charging for them on an a-la-cart basis. If they start out included, they will stay that way. (Unless for example the company or panel we've integrated with disappears and we simply remove it altogether.)

 

4. An example of a paid extension that we will be releasing is the Licensing Module / Licensing Manager Plugin combo. This is the same system we use to license Blesta, and we will be releasing it as a paid extension. The reason this will be a paid extension is because it serves a smaller market segment. Not many people need it. There will be other paid extensions like this down the road that either serve a particular niche, segment, or enterprise, but we will not be moving to an everything a-la-cart system. We will also not be moving to a limited feature module, pay more for extended feature model to upsell people.

 

I hope this helps clarify our position.

[electric]

 We will never take our free modules, and start charging for them on an a-la-cart basis. If they start out included, they will stay that way.

 

I hope this helps clarify our position.

Thanks Paul.  That is exactly the information I was looking for.