EmailDiscussions.com  

Go Back   EmailDiscussions.com > Email Service Provider-specific Forums > FastMail Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Stay in touch wirelessly

FastMail Forum All posts relating to FastMail.FM should go here: suggestions, comments, requests for help, complaints, technical issues etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 3 Jul 2017, 09:44 AM   #406
ioneja
Cornerstone of the Community
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 713
Hi BritTim, It's a tough call for any business to make that kind of decision, and like I mentioned, I really think the FM team probably talked about it many times. We don't have all the information in front of us, of course, but obviously the calculation was made that they had to cut those accounts... now, I do think that FM is not exactly great at marketing and PR so their decision was likely not motivated by PR reasons. :-)

However, I think the cost is far greater than people are estimating. Even if we go by your number of "fewer than 1000" users in this category, we do have some hints about how much it costs per account when FM employees mentioned recently about the margins of the old accounts... so I think my estimate of at LEAST $10 per year per account is very realistic. That means around $10,000 cost per year or so at the bottom end for your 1000 accounts. I rather think that the number is *much* higher. But let's just go with $10,000 for now... multiply that by at least the last 8 years of providing all that for free = $80,000 invested into those users... and then multiply that out by however many more years they want to keep that going.... so we're talking real money here. Email hosting is not exactly a lucrative business. Margins matter. My guess is the number they've invested in those users is well into the six figures.

In any case, you're totally right that there is a trade-off. They will take a hit and get some negative publicity, but in all fairness, they did honor those accounts for 8 (EIGHT!) years after closing signups... and that is after TWO huge business transformations and ownership/management changes! That's actually pretty decent of them in my book.

To me, they've paid the price and can morally let those accounts go. For goodness sake, they even offered the money as a credit, how many small Internet service providers have even survived eight+ years, let alone honored that kind of commitment over eight+ years? Not many. My password database is littered with the corpses of dozens of services over the years that literally no longer exist. Somewhere on some hard drive buried in a landfill, are photos I put into a dead cloud service 8 years ago.

So if someone is upset, I get it. They have a right to be upset. I just think it's being a bit unfair to FastMail though, given the way they honored those accounts for 8+ years.

I'm just trying to look at the broad picture here and put it into context... people paid $15 for that "lifetime" account... but come on... seriously. Some people signed up as far back as 2003, if I recall. That's 14 years!!!!!! Good grief. How could they have known how the Internet would evolve? Just pretend that the old FastMail died, went out of business or went bankrupt, then was resurrected by a bunch of hard working people who need to make a living. We'd be celebrating that, not condemning it. And let's be honest here... FastMail HAS indeed changed ownership. And you still expect them to give you services perpetually? It just doesn't make sense to me personally. Even if they filed for bankruptcy in the US, it wouldn't be on their records after 7 years (not that I have any personal experience with that). And what, do we expect FM employees to give free email on their deathbeds? Why not hunt down the original founder of FastMail (who no longer works at FastMail as I understand) and make him give us free email services?

And we should ALL know better... that there is NO free lunch. NONE. Things have to be paid for. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. That's sort of LIFE 101... and it certainly is INTERNET 101.

Bottom line FastMail shouldn't have made that dumb offer back then, but they were competing against growing behemoths of email providers, which have now taken over the world of email. The world has changed, the Internet has changed, give them a break, they paid their dues.

And of course I respect your different opinion. I just don't agree with it.

And if people are really, really, really upset, I'm sure there's a class action lawsuit that can be filed. And let's say that the upset people WIN the class action lawsuit (which I don't think they could because the user agreement no doubt said that they could change the service any time they wanted to)... but let's just pretend someone could win a class action lawsuit... what would the judge decide? Well, if it didn't cause FastMail to go bankrupt (thus ending your email account), then he might force FastMail to give you a refund of $15. Either way you would't have FastMail.

FastMail has already kept the accounts open for 8+ years and offered a $15 credit plus discounts to upgrade... that's pretty reasonable of them, and all that without a court order! And I bet that if you really pushed for it, FastMail might even give you a refund of $15 right now, without having to file a class action lawsuit.

Last edited by ioneja : 3 Jul 2017 at 09:56 AM.
ioneja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Jul 2017, 11:25 AM   #407
walpurg
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 39
@ioneja
First of all, I applaud your extensive effort (no sarcasm) in attempting to explain FastMail's actions. Much of what you say makes a lot of sense. The thing is though, until similar statements are made by the actual company, this (just as various other explanations given here before) effectively remains what is known as 'fanon' in fandom circles: fans filling in the holes accidentally or deliberately left in the factology. This can sometimes result in a narrative notably superior to the 'original work', but it can never replace it.

The 'original work', in this case, states (bolding is mine, except for the section title):
Quote:
Member' level accounts have not been available to new customers since 2009, with the vast majority of 'Member' users having since chosen one of our current plans or discontinuing their service.
and
Quote:
Why are Member level plans going away?

FastMail has always been a premium email service, paid for entirely by the subscription fees of our users.

As a security and privacy focused service with no ads, we don’t have any split loyalties. This means we can continue to invest in developing and maintaining FastMail for all of our customers.

While the cost of data and storage for Member accounts may seem low, there are significant costs associated with providing them, specifically to do with the huge resources required for ever-increasing security issues.

Every year we see a significant percentage of FastMail accounts compromised to send spam, phish our other customers and more. This results in very high support and abuse costs.

Today we require a team of full time staff just to manage security, in addition to multiple data centres and a 24-hour Operations Team.

We also have an ongoing commitment to continuing development, which is why these steps are necessary to maintain the high quality of service users have come to expect from us over the years."
A person with common sense might read the bolded parts as follows: FM has a negligible number of Member accounts left (not a fact, but heavily implied); their cost of data and storage is in fact low (since the fact is not disputed but misdirected onto another issue); but they have a disproportionate cost in terms of maintaining security.

Now, let's turn to the unbolded parts to hopefully get a more detailed explanation, especially of that last point.

A person with common sense might read the non-bolded parts as follows: Member level accounts are indeed no different from other accounts, since nothing in these additional talking points is Member level specific. Ergo, there is no significant overhead in maintaining these specific accounts, including security. Because if there was, we would be given an explanation about that (we all know FM is well capable of very nice technical explanations) instead of these generic points about generic issues pertaining to running an email company.

Why was the Member level created in the first place? Presumably because FM wanted to accelerate the growth of the company with a short term income boost. Likely with an assumption that those sigining up as Members would eventually move to a higher tier or abandon their accounts. Has this happened? "[T]he vast majority of 'Member' users hav[e] since chosen one of our current plans or discontinu[ed] their service." Apparently so. Does there seem to be a pressing... no, any need to discontinue the few remaining Member accounts based on the reasons we've been given? Not as far as I can see. Not a good situation, conducive of conspiracy theories, hand-wringing and all the fun we've had around here.

It's largely immaterial whether FM provides a service that is worth much more than what Members have paid (it does; most of us wouldn't be paying them every year if that wasn't the case). It's just that if an early investor was able to buy shares in a company at $1 a piece and the shares ended up valued at $1000 a piece, that lucky fellow gets to enjoy their good fortune, they are not forced to rebuy those same shares at $1000 before making use of them. And there is no 'honorable enough' deadline after which forcing them to do that becomes acceptable. (Not talking about literal FM shares obviously, it's an analogy where a company has to live without maximum possible profits.)

Members gave their cash to FM when it needed it, they did so at FM's own voluntary invitation, and they shouldn't get reneged on without a pressing reason, very clearly explained. Explained by the company, not its fans. Until then, any amount of *****ing and moaning is acceptable, and no one is forcing anyone to read this thread if they find it excessive, boring and/or stupid. It's been stated a million times that only a small fraction of FM users visit this board, so there's not even some huge risk to FM's reputation that its aficionados have to head off. If people want to unload here, why not just let them. Hopefully they'll feel a little better afterwards. I'm not saying that suggestions for possible ways out from this situation shouldn't be given (such as suggesting alternate services), but I don't think it's of any use to anyone if their gist comes down to "FM is good, FM is right, get over it and shut up already, you ungrateful lot". (That's not directed at your post for the most part, @ioneja, there's been some pretty arrogantly dismissive rhetoric here before.)

P.S. Since I've already spent quite a bit of time in this thread in the past (especially considering that this issue has no direct effect on me personally, except for eroding FM's credibility), I'll likely be reluctant to engage in further discussion. I'm saying this so you wouldn't take my lack of response to your potential reply as a dismissal of your further points. Like I already said, much of what you say makes a lot of sense.

Last edited by walpurg : 3 Jul 2017 at 12:12 PM.
walpurg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Jul 2017, 11:32 AM   #408
BritTim
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: mostly in Thailand
Posts: 3,084
The average baseline cost of each account may well be upwards of US$10. However, that factors in the overall infrastructure and support costs. The marginal cost of a low usage account is, I am pretty sure, quite a bit less. (And, member accounts still in use must be very lightly used accounts: their limits preclude anything else.)

I am sure you are correct, and this was discussed thoroughly by FastMail. That does not mean they made the correct rational decision. I personally think they were just emotionally disinclined to give those those member accounts, who they already considered had received too good a deal, further free concessions. That emotional response has hurt their image in the eyes of longstanding customers who were staunch supporters and references of the service over many years.
BritTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Jul 2017, 12:25 PM   #409
walpurg
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by samhu View Post
Over 48,000 views of this thread now (more than all but one "sticky") and still no "Representative of Fastmail" person's input except when said representative made the announcement of this unrighteous action to start this thread.
Not that I disagree with your point, but you're mistaken about this being the most viewed non-sticky thread. It's only the most viewed recent thread, you have to select 'From The Beginning' at the bottom of the page to see all.
walpurg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Jul 2017, 12:44 PM   #410
ioneja
Cornerstone of the Community
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 713
Thank you walpurg and BritTim, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. One of the reasons why I joined this forum was because of the good folks here like you, and it's been one of the few forums I still visit and frankly enjoy. Over the years I've learned a lot -- so I mean everything I say very respectfully.

I totally get the response from some folks about the situation. And although perhaps I look like a fan of FastMail to some of you, I'm just sharing my perspective on the issue, having been burned so many times in the past by other services. I just found myself a little surprised by the responses in this thread. But I do get it. And I certainly don't want to convey that I think you all should just shut your mouths. If what I wrote came across like that, I just want to make it clear that if you are upset, then I hope you say something to FastMail. They are far from perfect, and they need to continue to grow and learn how to work with us if they are going to survive. And I'd really like them to survive... so please make all the noise you need to. I hope you send support requests with complaints too.

If they have one major PR issue over the years, I've found that they are very lopsided in their communication... they are great at communicating technical details (please keep that up!) but they are not so great connecting on an emotional/visceral/personal level -- to their detriment. There's a certain nuance to it that is very hard to achieve, so I understand if they are reluctant to go down that path... but it would be very helpful if they learned how to do it.

So I'm not trying to speak for them -- I'm just putting the situation into context from my experience with them and their story, but also trying to acknowledge your frustration. It's really a neat story BTW -- they really did buy back the company from Opera... and that says something great about them IMO... it's a rare kind of story that if they could convey the emotional aspect of it, I think people would be more understanding of their controversial decisions -- i.e: this thread, and the issue of dropping the old interface, etc.

So yes, I agree that a better response from FastMail should be given, but again, they're not exactly adept at PR, and I don't expect them to change.

In any case, FM has made two big, frustrating decisions, and they are both hitting the fan at the same time without better explanations (another brilliant PR move on their part). People certainly have a right to express themselves and be upset, and make their feelings felt with their dollars if they want to march off in protest to another service. Hey I get it. I have other paid email services I use.

I just think it's being a bit tough on them given the big picture. But I get it and wish there was another, better solution, or at least it would indeed be great if they understood how to handle things with a little more grace in their PR.

I've also been on the side of having to let clients go from my business, or drop support for a service or product I offered to clients. It has never been an easy decision. Maybe I'm a softy, but I really do believe that FM did not take the decisions lightly, as evidenced by the extended period of time (IMO) they kept things running.

I also do think that people have unrealistic expectations of Internet services and businesses in general. As if we all need another lesson, but this is a good example of what were unrealistic promises on their part a decade ago intersecting with unrealistic expectations on our part that something like that was possible. The only miracle here is that FastMail somehow survived the butchery of the email market by the GMail model, and I kind of like to hold on to hope that they'll be around for the next few decades. No matter which way you look at it, they need to continue to learn and listen to their customers, so I do hope they're listening now.

Wishing you all the best no matter your perspective on the matter,
ioneja
ioneja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Jul 2017, 01:39 PM   #411
Terry
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: VK4
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioneja View Post
The only miracle here is that FastMail somehow survived the butchery of the email market by the GMail model, No matter which way you look at it, they need to continue to learn and listen to their customers, so I do hope they're listening now.
They listen BUT....
Terry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Jul 2017, 02:00 PM   #412
ChinaLamb
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a virtually impossible but finitely improbable position
Posts: 2,320
These are good points, but they are now, quite *moot* points...

The dead horse has been beaten, belabored, harped, lingered over, nailed and driven into the wall, nagged about, scrutinized, kicked about, thoroughly chewed, and analyzed to death....

Only to be raised from the dead to be beaten again, rehashed, rambled, ranted, twaddled, glibbered, blathered, raved........
ChinaLamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Jul 2017, 02:25 PM   #413
walpurg
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 39
@ioneja

That was a very nice post. No problemo from my end And there's nothing wrong with being a fan.

I will dissent on the unrealistic promises/expectations part, at least assuming their statement about 'vast majority' having upgraded or just left accurately represents the situation (you never know with PR talk). Like I said, it seems like everything went pretty much as planned, just for some reason they suddenly could no longer stomach the minuscule (by their own implication) remnant. I'm more or less with @BritTim on that one.
walpurg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Jul 2017, 12:47 AM   #414
samhu
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 50
I believe that there was a (tiny) consensus that the "for some reason", when it was being speculated about early in this thread, was that it would make Fastmail more attractive to a potential suitor.
samhu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Jul 2017, 05:33 AM   #415
jhollington
Essential Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 371
That's certainly as good an explanation as any on the business side of things.... Whether it's looking for a full-on sell-out or just trying to approach investors.

However, assuming that FastMail's references to "significant costs" and "huge resources" and "ever increasing security issues" aren't just a smokescreen, I can think of a number of technical issues that might have made it more worthwhile for FastMail to simply "cut bait" on these old legacy accounts, especially considering how "lean and mean" they run from a technical perspective.

I think I had said it somewhere else — possibly even earlier in this thread —*that for all we know the legacy "Member" accounts could be sitting on some ancient server platform that's reaching end-of-life for things like operating system updates and patches. I can see it being pretty hard for FastMail to justify the resource costs of moving these legacy accounts onto the current "modern" FastMail architecture — remember that with all of the changes FastMail (and Internet tech in general) have been through in the past decade and a half, it's not simply a matter of copying some mailbox folders from one server to another; we could be talking about completely different mail store formats being used for the legacy accounts.

Of course, as others have pointed out, we have absolutely no idea, and I join the others in wishing that FastMail would give us some actual insight into what's going on here, but as somebody who has been in the business, I can definitely see where there may be bigger technical roadblocks here than most people would expect.
jhollington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Jul 2017, 07:03 AM   #416
BritTim
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: mostly in Thailand
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhollington View Post
I think I had said it somewhere else — possibly even earlier in this thread —*that for all we know the legacy "Member" accounts could be sitting on some ancient server platform that's reaching end-of-life for things like operating system updates and patches. I can see it being pretty hard for FastMail to justify the resource costs of moving these legacy accounts onto the current "modern" FastMail architecture — remember that with all of the changes FastMail (and Internet tech in general) have been through in the past decade and a half, it's not simply a matter of copying some mailbox folders from one server to another; we could be talking about completely different mail store formats being used for the legacy accounts.
I have a lot of respect for your technical acumen, but I think you are misinterpreting the source of the maintenance cost of Member accounts. There is plenty of evidence that they run on exactly the same infrastructure as everyone else. The maintenance challenge is related to the restrictions on Member account functionality: not just resource limits, but actual functionality differences. Canning the accounts altogether is a simple solution, but almost as simple would be to upgrade them to the cheapest account level you still want to support. There is only one limitation I would think you would want to keep: automatic cancellation of the accounts in the event of inactivity.
BritTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Jul 2017, 08:23 AM   #417
n5bb
Intergalactic Postmaster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Irving, Texas
Posts: 8,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritTim View Post
... Canning the accounts altogether is a simple solution, but almost as simple would be to upgrade them to the cheapest account level you still want to support..
Fastmail is doing this exact thing for one year (free one year Basic account for all Members who choose to upgrade for zero cost). But those of us who paid every year for the last decade would feel pretty bad if people got free Basic accounts for life (with the same feature level as a current Basic account) who only paid a small one-time fee! That's not fair at all.

I hope that all of those with Member accounts remember that they can get a free Basic account which ends in July, 2018 (or pay to get future years at half price with an additional $15 credit):
http://www.emaildiscussions.com/show...&postcount=254
To me that's a fantastic benefit for Member accounts. They can even get a half-price discount on a Standard or Professional account for up to a three year period. As far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent them from essentially trading this account with someone else who buys them a new Basic account, since you can change your username and billing details. So if all I had was a Member account, I would at least upgrade to a free Basic account for a year, and might even consider transferring that account to someone else who could then use it to their great advantage. The current value of a Member account is (in $US):
  • $30 (if they upgrade to a Basic account for one year at no cost)
  • $42.50 (if they upgrade to a Basic account for two years for $12.50 cost)
  • $55 (if they upgrade to a Basic account for three years for $25 cost)
  • $40 (if they upgrade to a Standard account for one year for $10 cost)
  • $60 (if they upgrade to a Standard account for two years for $30 cost)
  • $80 (if they upgrade to a Standard account for three years for $50 cost)
  • Even more if upgrading to a Professional account
Bill
n5bb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Jul 2017, 08:56 AM   #418
Terry
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: VK4
Posts: 2,995
That's a good deal, perhaps make a thread with these details in and make it sticky.
Terry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Jul 2017, 09:27 AM   #419
walpurg
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by n5bb View Post
But those of us who paid every year for the last decade would feel pretty bad if people got free Basic accounts for life (with the same feature level as a current Basic account) who only paid a small one-time fee! That's not fair at all.
It may not be 'fair' in some absolute sense, but since grandfathering is hardly a novel concept for anyone, I honestly doubt there'd be much uproar even if this were to happen. I suppose maybe if the beneficiaries started bragging about it here and rubbing our faces in it things could get ugly, but why would they do that?

Besides, despite the various well-meaning endeavors around here to dream up all kinds of theoretical complexities, I still fail to understand why they couldn't simply give those people Basic accounts, except with their current Member quotas. For email pros like FM that should be easier than walking while chewing gum.
walpurg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Jul 2017, 09:54 AM   #420
jhollington
Essential Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by walpurg View Post
Besides, despite the various well-meaning endeavors around here to dream up all kinds of theoretical complexities, I still fail to understand why they couldn't simply give those people Basic accounts, except with their current Member quotas. For email pros like FM that should be easier than walking while chewing gum.
Yeah, this.

Honestly, as much as there may be other complex distinctions between the legacy Members accounts and a current Basic account, simply specifying a lower storage quota really shouldn't be rocket science from a technical level (and if it is, I'd suggest that FastMail's code is needlessly complex).

That's why I'm ultimately thinking that the technical reasons have to run a bit deeper. I hear what BritTim is saying above about there being evidence that they're on the same platform, but I don't know if I'm entirely convinced of that... I'm not suggesting the infrastructure is entirely different — there are multiple components to a mail system — but the actual mail stores for "Member" accounts might be running on older legacy systems. It's really not a stretch at all, and I've been involved in literally hundreds of e-mail migration projects (mostly in corporate environments) where most users would never realize exactly how ancient the servers are on which some of the older mail stores reside, and I've been through more than a few emergency migrations because of that sort of thing... in a corporate environment you pretty much have to keep everyone's mailboxes alive.... you can't just cut old mail stores loose because they're too much trouble and aren't generating any revenue

Again, however, some can validly argue I'm giving FastMail too much credit here, but that's just the kind of guy I am
jhollington is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +9. The time now is 02:53 PM.

 

Copyright EmailDiscussions.com 1998-2022. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy