better to host with older company?

Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > better to host with older company?

Posted by jroy, 11-17-2003, 06:29 PM
Is it better to host with an older company? I was thinking of hosting with a newer company(cheaper costs). Which is better? Thanks,
Posted by Websellers, 11-17-2003, 06:58 PM
Older companies will have more history and reviews you can lookup. There is nothing wrong with chooseing a newer company but you should look into there company a little bit more then you would with a older company. If everything looks right i recomend going with them.
Posted by jroy, 11-17-2003, 07:18 PM
thanks
Posted by ChowSumDung, 11-17-2003, 07:27 PM
It depends on how 'old' or 'new' the host is. From past experience, going with hosts that are under a year old is extremely risky. Hosts that have been in existence 3+ years are usually a solid bet.
Posted by hekwu, 11-17-2003, 07:43 PM
Luck of draw... many times if you get a new company you can get good deals as they try to pay bills and get a firm client base, before upping the costs. New companies will sometimes have the latest technolgy (which can be good or bad). Old companies, do have a history, but it depends (ie you could have an old company with old servers unwilling to upgrade)... many things can go wrong with either old or new companies. Luck of the draw... no good or bad with new or old companies. I've been burnt by both.
Posted by invert, 11-17-2003, 09:33 PM
Maybe sometimes if the price is unrealistic it's better to be hosted with an established company... just by precaution! Beware of scammers... Regards, -Maxime L.
Posted by jroy, 11-17-2003, 09:40 PM
i was thinking about going with xeohosting.com but i probably wont now. they've only been in business for about a month so i don't think i will host with them.
Posted by Daryl, 11-17-2003, 09:48 PM
To be honest with you Josh...nowadays people are only looking for cheap pricing for hosting but they also do look for reliable service. It is very funny because for reliable service it is going to cost you obviously because it is going to cost the hosting provider. Secondly I did notice that people also fall in for web hosting companies that have a VERY good web design but I dont think that a companies website has anything to do with its service. I have seen some of the best hosting companies with very crappy web design. I would recommend that you go with an older and well established web hosting company but it is up to you in terms of which path you want to take
Posted by AussieHosts, 11-17-2003, 10:11 PM
I guess the fact is, everyone has to start somewhere. The same "tools of the trade" are available to everyone. Some choose to use them wisely, from the start. Some don't. But then some choose to keep using them wisely. Some don't. Generally speaking it's a fairly level playing field. So your best bet is to ask around and seek out testimonials/reviews from actual clients. A 1 month old provider wont have alot of those, but give them time. Good luck in your quest. Gary
Posted by ozzie123, 11-18-2003, 01:19 AM
It's a lucky shot. I suggest you go with host that have a money back guarantee. If you are not satisfied with the service, you can easily ask refund.
Posted by Aussie Bob, 11-18-2003, 01:36 AM
No real answer for that. You might choose a host that's been running for 2mths, but they're all geed up and keen as heck to please. They will probably deliver you a better hosting experience than some hosts established for years. It's a possibility. But IMO, the longer the host has been in business, the better chance you have of receiving a better hosting experience. It's not always the case, but chances are it would be. A similar thought process could be that the more expensive a hosting plan prices, then the greater the chances are of a better hosting experience with that plan. Or the cheaper a hosting plan, the greater the chance of you receiving poor service. It's not always the way, and hence the use of the word "chances".
Posted by ozzie123, 11-18-2003, 01:45 AM
I aggree with Bob. Here's another thing to think: Usually the longer the host in business, the more customer they have (well, this is not entirely true). You usually have a more personalized service from a smaller hosting.
Posted by Nymix-CB, 11-18-2003, 07:00 AM
Well you can choose someone who is not too old and not too new This way you will have both side of them.
Posted by Daryl, 11-18-2003, 10:03 AM
I dont think you would have both sides if you choose someone not too old and not too new....I dont know how you would come up with something like this
Posted by mpalamar, 11-18-2003, 03:39 PM
Do you really want to place the future of your hosting business in the hands of a new host? A supplier that runs into problems is going to reflect on your company as a reseller. There are enough risks in starting a new hosting company that it doesn't pay to take an additional risk by choosing a new host just to save a couple dollars a month. New hosts are good for family sites or sites that don't make any money because you can usually get more features for less money.
Posted by Nymix-CB, 11-19-2003, 12:17 AM
Well we are only one year old but we do have a lot of things big hosts. Kayako, ModernBill, vBulletin, eNom, Toll-Free...etc. Don't know what you mean by "too new" although
Posted by pmabraham, 11-24-2003, 06:12 PM
Greetings: While the older companies where new once (I sometimes have to remind myself our company started out of a spare bedroom before graduating to office space, and getting to be eight years old), they have a proven track record. The Web hosting industry attracts a lot of start ups due to the low cost of entry. Most of the new start ups are high school students, college students, and often-times disillusioned employees with either some technical background or some marketing background. The above statements are not a bad thing, but more often than not they come into the industry with a lack of business sense as to what to charge in order to keep their business alive and growing. They often oversell to the extreme, and base pricing on technology prices alone (more below), and often do not put together a serious business plan that a bank or investor would approve (Im not stating they are seeking money, but if the plan will not pass muster, then what good is it?). In terms of overselling, they often have plans with so much resources that if more than 25% of their customers used what they are paying to be able to use, they would not be able to provide the service. They often rent an unmanaged box from a company that provides zero uptime guarantee, and very poor hardware repair and replacement guarantees (if any). Then they say to themselves they are renting a box for $150 per month, and they can fit 250 sites on the server. Since they imagine this is their only cost, they determine their cost per client is $0.60 per client ($150 / 250). Then they charge $3.00 per month or so thinking they are raking in the cash. If they see a post on WHT asking for $1.00 per month hosting, they say to themselves they are still making $0.40 profit on that client and they grab the client, and accept the offer. The older hosts more often than not avoided that playing field that makes walking through the streets of Baghdad at night feel safe. So, you could go with a new host hoping they are not playing with a mine field and save a buck or two then pay for it later or you could go with a host that has gone through the ropes. Thank you.
Posted by Incognito, 11-24-2003, 07:09 PM
Have to say while the above has a lot of valid points, it also is a bit self-serving in some respects. Furthermore, lumping all old or all new companies together is somewhat unfair. Also, what age determines old versus new? And, how do you count the previous business and management experience of the new company? So, my answer is that age and experience are important. Many other factors are as well. Find out all you can. Then decide. While age of firm does show survival skills, I can point to several of the oldest and largest hosts around who provide the absolute worst service imaginable. So, look at track history and other factors as well.
Posted by pmabraham, 11-24-2003, 10:37 PM
Greetings: I believe once a company has gotten past the five year mark, they fit into the category of old (as it relates to a start up). I view it as grandfather, father, son. Grandfather would be 10 to 15 years old or more. Father would be 5 or older; son would be under 5. Yes, you can have a brand new start up, even by high school students that can finish the race. However, in the current market place the propensity by most new start ups is to jealously oversell to the point of illogic and to price solely based on the cost of technology in and of itself. That methodology tells me no business sense. Thank you.
Posted by lazouche80, 11-25-2003, 12:13 AM
I would say that it is better with an older host. They have more experience and can help you better with complicated support problems, that is my opinion
Posted by aingaran, 11-25-2003, 12:23 AM
Well, relatively speaking (to these boards) CI Hos is an older host. I don't think anyone will suggest going with them. You hae to look for an older but REPUTABLE company.
Posted by wheimeng, 11-25-2003, 05:23 AM
Time does not determine service provided by a company. However, going with a newly established company might be a little more risky compared to an old host as you won't know when would the new host would be around for how many DAYS even. That is just my 2 cents. Indeed, please don't go for purely price only should you are concerned of stability

Add to Favourites Print this Article