Comment by thinkingkong
8 months ago
Im reading between the lines here but it seems like the traffic amount, the saas subscription tier, and the actions required to remidiate some issue were all unaligned.
1. Its quite possible thar CF having this site on some multi-tenant infrastructure could be threatening. Not unreasonable at least to ask them to have their own IP block.
2. If thats the issue then a clear explanation should have been provided. Routing to sales is inexcusable. Someone isnt being transparent.
3. If it’s a pure cost / revenue issue then say that, set a deadline and negotiate. This is bad karma and even though CF is clearly the market leader, what they do isnt rocket surgery. Not worth it.
My thoughts here are also all speculation, but when you mentioned multi-tenant issues my mind immediately went to a situation I've seen all too many times before:
- a companies ops team identifies a tenant that is too heavy/burdensome for multi-tenant infra and is causing issues. These issues can cost a serious amount of money if you factor in dev/ops times to resolve, other customers impacted, etc. Certainly more than what a hypothetical single multi-tenant customer could be paying
- they escalated internally and need the tenant moved to enterprise asap to resolve
- the only reason the tenant was on multi was because sales sold them the wrong thing, so now it's on sales to explain how to fix this
- improper handling internally results in this landing only on sales, with no backup, and with their task being to get them to take enterprise
- when the customer refuses enterprise they go "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
Again, this is totally speculation and I'd hope CF has more mature practices than this but this is a scenario I've seen before in much smaller orgs.
What stands out as odd to me is that CF seems to be pushing away a $10k/month customer. No business can reasonably be expected to accept sudden price changes like that, even if they'd paid, they would've moved away within a year.
Given that the article is an online casino that seems to be using potentially ToS violating domain rotation, and that they pay so little per month for apparently millions of users, I for one will not form an opinion on CF based on this article before CF has a chance to defend itself.