Giving FastMail Credit - Page 6

room222 · 24 Jun 2004, 08:55 PM

users should have realized that buying a "lifetime" service from any small relatively unknown supplier of a rapidly changing technology was a dubious proposition at best. In fact, I believe it should not even be offered by those service providers that do. Email is one of the most rapidly changing technologies and no provider can commit to lifetime service. We shall see what manner of problems this may cause fastmail.

regards,

mike

don_dannielo · 24 Jun 2004, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Howard
Getting rid of these accounts is not something we're considering at the moment. I'd be surprised, however, if we decided to increase the amount of resources we provided to these accounts.

In terms of storage space, if full and enhanced are to be significantly upgraded, how will the new users be attracted if you don't upgrade the free acount too? And if the free accounts are upgraded, my assumption is that the member accounts should be upgraded too, otherwise there would be some gross disproportionalities.

Sidcup · 24 Jun 2004, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim44224
Sidcup, I understand your argument but it really hinges on the premise that Fastmail knowingly and intentionally sold you a service that would rapidly become obsolete or even useless. Now you might feel that that premise is correct but I think the overwhelming viewpoints expressed here is that is not what Fastmail schemed to do.

I am not privy to Fastmail management's deliberations, and I have no information about their "intentions". I am disappointed though that while major e-mail providers have announced significant quota increases for their users, paid or otherwise, FM seems to regard the current market situation as an opportunity to generate upgrades from a class of paid users to which I happen to belong. I can only speculate about how they think they can get away with such a move. It's that for many people the hassle of changing e-mail addresses is too much. In plain English this is called bait and switch.

bitequator · 25 Jun 2004, 12:05 AM

^ As has been mentioned repeatedly, you're experiencing buyer remorse due to changing market conditions which had caught everyone by surprise.

And the decision to increase storage for non-subscriber accounts -- as with any other provider -- I think is an issue that pertains more to remaining competitive to users. But you're constantly referring to "bait and switch" schemes where you feel FM is morally and ethically obliged to grant your "right" to more space (a strong-arming tactic someone had said).

What's interesting, in some ways the more generous dynamics of the one-payment Member account might perhaps encourage this line of thinking. With a recurring subscription, if I decide not to renew and switch to another paid provider, I would simply consider the money I did pay for the previous year as having been consumed by the service I received for that previous year

LrdVader · 25 Jun 2004, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidcup
Moreover, folks, you are ignoring the fact that other paid e-mail services have upgraded their mail storage. Fastmail is also about to upgrade storage for its paid users, excluding members. That's like saying "Thanks for your $15, you can go now".

And you are ignoring the fact that subscribers of those other services, and FM's Full and Enhanced subscribers, continue to pay for those services on an ongoing basis, while you do not. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison.

FMRocks · 25 Jun 2004, 06:35 AM

Sidcup,

Edwin, the administrator of this forum has put his foot down with regard to your argument/language use. It is in everyone's interest for you to abide by his decisions. When Edwin says, "don't try my patience any further," he means it.

SOHCC · 25 Jun 2004, 06:41 AM

If FM decided that Member accounts wouldn't get any upgrades, how would anyone justify paying $15 for a mere 16MB ? $15 is not much, but it's still money.

I think FM either has to give something to Member account or close down new Member account.

curious · 25 Jun 2004, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SOHCC
If FM decided that Member accounts wouldn't get any upgrades, how would anyone justify paying $15 for a mere 16MB ? $15 is not much, but it's still money.

And how much do you have to pay to get offline access from the other companies? And to lose all the ads? oh yeah, and are you ready to pay that amount every year, not as a one-time fee?

We've been over this already. Many many times.

SOHCC · 25 Jun 2004, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by curious
And how much do you have to pay to get offline access from the other companies? And to lose all the ads? oh yeah, and are you ready to pay that amount every year, not as a one-time fee?

Are you saying majority of Member accounts have these requirements ? I bought Member account because it had more space than yahoo and no tag lines.

curious · 25 Jun 2004, 07:35 AM

No, I'm saying that the Member level offers a different feature set and pricing structure, which makes it difficult to compare it to either the free or annual-fee services.

Sorry if I was a bit touchy in my previous post. I guess I don't sympathize with the calls to increase the Free and Member accounts. I do think the annually renewing levels need revising in the face of changes implemented by FM's competition, but I really don't see much incentive or reason for FM to increase the Guest/Member levels.

Think of it this way: at GMail, Yahoo and Hotmail, you "pay" for your free account by viewing ads. None of the three offers offline access at the ad-supported level -- after all, that would allow you to bypass the ads and really get all that space for free. FM doesn't make you view ads, but it also means that they can't afford to give away so much space for free.

Just my opinion.

FMRocks · 25 Jun 2004, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SOHCC
I think FM either has to give something to Member account or close down new Member account.

That's rather pointless to speculate, since if no one new buys it, it's as good as being closed down. The market will direct this easily even if no action is taken.

Jim44224 · 25 Jun 2004, 08:27 AM

Purely speculative on my part but I think the Member account option has probably attracted a significant number of Fastmail users who otherwise would have gone with a "name" e-mail provider. It stands to reason that many Members are now annual subscribers. It would be a shame if the Member feature set were to become so obsolete (not saying it is now!) compared to what's available elsewhere that the initial attraction to Fastmail wanes considerably. Only Fastmail can sort that issue out, though.

**gdg** · 25 Jun 2004, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FMRocks
That's rather pointless to speculate, since if no one new buys it, it's as good as being closed down. The market will direct this easily even if no action is taken.

As Jeremy would say..."Spot on!"

Sidcup · 25 Jun 2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FMRocks
Sidcup,

Edwin, the administrator of this forum has put his foot down with regard to your argument/language use. It is in everyone's interest for you to abide by his decisions. When Edwin says, "don't try my patience any further," he means it.

Well, the voice of the faithful, long on devotion and, for the most part, short on substance, has been heard. Management, though, has so far been conspicuously absent from this debate.

**gdg** · 25 Jun 2004, 01:55 PM

This thread was really meant to be one that would allow people to give credit to FM where credit is due. For me, that was the functionality of the service. That it is lacking in other areas is very true, but it was not my intention in starting this thread for it to necessarily turn into another "blast FM" thread.

24 Jun 2004, 08:55 PM	#76
room222 Essential Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: New York City Posts: 231	users should have realized that buying a "lifetime" service from any small relatively unknown supplier of a rapidly changing technology was a dubious proposition at best. In fact, I believe it should not even be offered by those service providers that do. Email is one of the most rapidly changing technologies and no provider can commit to lifetime service. We shall see what manner of problems this may cause fastmail. regards, mike

25 Jun 2004, 12:05 AM	#79
bitequator The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 2,978	^ As has been mentioned repeatedly, you're experiencing buyer remorse due to changing market conditions which had caught everyone by surprise. And the decision to increase storage for non-subscriber accounts -- as with any other provider -- I think is an issue that pertains more to remaining competitive to users. But you're constantly referring to "bait and switch" schemes where you feel FM is morally and ethically obliged to grant your "right" to more space (a strong-arming tactic someone had said). What's interesting, in some ways the more generous dynamics of the one-payment Member account might perhaps encourage this line of thinking. With a recurring subscription, if I decide not to renew and switch to another paid provider, I would simply consider the money I did pay for the previous year as having been consumed by the service I received for that previous year

25 Jun 2004, 06:35 AM	#81
FMRocks The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: FM does NOT refer to Fastmail (anymore). Posts: 4,034	Sidcup, Edwin, the administrator of this forum has put his foot down with regard to your argument/language use. It is in everyone's interest for you to abide by his decisions. When Edwin says, "don't try my patience any further," he means it.

25 Jun 2004, 06:41 AM	#82
SOHCC Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 47	If FM decided that Member accounts wouldn't get any upgrades, how would anyone justify paying $15 for a mere 16MB ? $15 is not much, but it's still money. I think FM either has to give something to Member account or close down new Member account.

25 Jun 2004, 07:35 AM	#85
curious Essential Contributor Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 364	No, I'm saying that the Member level offers a different feature set and pricing structure, which makes it difficult to compare it to either the free or annual-fee services. Sorry if I was a bit touchy in my previous post. I guess I don't sympathize with the calls to increase the Free and Member accounts. I do think the annually renewing levels need revising in the face of changes implemented by FM's competition, but I really don't see much incentive or reason for FM to increase the Guest/Member levels. Think of it this way: at GMail, Yahoo and Hotmail, you "pay" for your free account by viewing ads. None of the three offers offline access at the ad-supported level -- after all, that would allow you to bypass the ads and really get all that space for free. FM doesn't make you view ads, but it also means that they can't afford to give away so much space for free. Just my opinion.

25 Jun 2004, 08:27 AM	#87
Jim44224 Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 74	Purely speculative on my part but I think the Member account option has probably attracted a significant number of Fastmail users who otherwise would have gone with a "name" e-mail provider. It stands to reason that many Members are now annual subscribers. It would be a shame if the Member feature set were to become so obsolete (not saying it is now!) compared to what's available elsewhere that the initial attraction to Fastmail wanes considerably. Only Fastmail can sort that issue out, though.

25 Jun 2004, 01:55 PM	#90
gdg Moderator Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,308	This thread was really meant to be one that would allow people to give credit to FM where credit is due. For me, that was the functionality of the service. That it is lacking in other areas is very true, but it was not my intention in starting this thread for it to necessarily turn into another "blast FM" thread.