Shared Lifetime hosting package - Is it a good idea?

[Danielx64]

In my other topic (https://theadminzone.com/threads/get-a-year-of-web-hosting-for-6-90.142205/unread) I made a point that you can get a lifetime hosting package from $180 USD. While it is limited time, do you think that it a good idea to pay a little more for one of those deals where you pay once and that's it?

 

[LeadCrow]

For hosting, I think it's never a good idea. It should be a sweet deal if the webhost survives long enough and service is not degraded ('accidentally' or deliberately).

The first clients are the hardest to secure and the faith of early adopters deserves extra service, but IMO honoring a promise of lifetime hosting is simply unfeasible. Eventually early adopters will be made to leave the service or 'upgrade' and likely face poorer service until they do (degraded speeds, no/few backups, server stack kept obsolete... as long as the promised "lifetime" sticks). Promotional campaigns should in advance account for a potential reduction of new plan signups over time, because the early generosity is in fact subsided by the new clients. Unless that subvention is a fixed, controlled promotion expense, there's ll sorts of way a promise of lifetime service can go wrong.

 

[Danielx64]

To be honest I never heard of such a thing until today, I wasn't going to take it up but I wanted to see what others had to say about it.

 

[LeadCrow]

As long as its limited, it can be viable. Some hosts offer hosting services for organizations subsided differently (like as part of realworld contracts or honorific promotions - helps secure a couple goodwilled customers to test the service). Others might offer actually free lifetime hosting as a favour but ask for a voluntary contribution (upfront or otherwise, like displaying your ads or revenue sharing - this just stopped making sense now that shared hosting is cheap).

So it's not really shady as a concept, just a financial hit a new webhost can't take without a financial guarantee of growth for regular customers outside that promotional window.
From a webmaster perspective, 180$ is only justifiable with a minimum 3 years of service. Who's to say the host is not shutting down or suffering a crippling technical failure before? In general, small enough payments trickling keeps webhosts honest and on top of issues.

 

[TrixieTang]

If you die tomorrow then you'll be regretting this investment.

 

[eirureaieuw]

They probably would sell a bunch of lifetime webhosting packages and then will stop paying for server cost when it starts to get full and they can't sell further packages. meaning the investment would be lost at some point of time and it will be be quicker than paying for shared hosting plan.

 

[BeyBrad]

Just remember that if you ever buy a lifetime membership, you're buying it for the lifetime of the company, not your own lifetime.

 

[Nabix]

Chances are it is highly over sold. Besides you can get vps hosting prices for the cost of shared now days. And get way more control over you website(s).

 

[Alex.]

You could get hit by a commuter bus tomorrow, bounce 50 feet, and then get run over with a dual carriage semi truck. In other words, lifetime hosting is up there with "unlimited" hosting or... I had something else in mind but forgot by the time I got to that ellipses.