Runbox increases all email storage quotas to 10 GB.

[MikhailT]

I like the new storage increases but i do not like the price increase for something that few number of people will use.


Runbox should have a 1GB plan with lower bandwidth limit if they wish for people like me who are college students. YOU CAN ALSO SAY NO TECHINCAL SUPPORT FOR THIS PLAN. So don't give me this crap about how few newbies on cheaper plan might cost more money to support because they'll ask more questions. I do not care about techincal support as long as runbox maintain the servers and make sure it works allrite. Techincal support should be free for ONLY serious problems.

This is something I now have to consider. 30 was perfect for runbox and now 50? Who's to say that it won't be 70 for Jan 2007? Definately ruined any chance of me convincing other people to use runbox.

[David]

Reading between the lines, of the majority of messages posted to this thread, I notice a degree of inaccuracy. I also notice a tendency to unfairly categorise email users -- to put them into boxes.

Low end and low grade, are terms that are being applied to email users who do not use or need a massive amount of resources. While people who use (and sometimes waste) massive amounts of resources, who send and receive many html messages (with huge attachments) are being described as 'power users' Is this a fair and accurate statement?

A power user (by my definition) is a person who carefully explores the resources available -- a power user is someone who completes the task at hand, using only a minimal of resources.

EG: Do you choose to mail a link to your files, so that they can be downloaded from an ftp site, or do you send the file as a huge email attachment?

The level of account, that I see being referred to as 'low grade' and 'low end' is actually what I consider to be a high grade account.

Newbi users will often throw money into high cost (high capacity) accounts, with unlimited bandwidth and storage.

Newbi's just want to have no limits, mostly because they have no clue on how to manage their mail, with a minimal of resources.

I say the above in contrast to what 'Trip said earlier

that users on cheaper plans usually put more of a load on support than do users paying more money. Newbies tend to pay the least for something they use very little

Low resource users (imo) are the real power users and they often purchase the cheapest plans. They are most often the ones who send and receive the most amount of smaller messages

Size is not everything Neither is biggest always best (email style)

[sky]

In the case for Runbox, every user gets the same set of features, so i think it is right to categorize them as light users and heavy users.

And I would say that the super heavy users (who need a couple gb of storage) may find the announccement a blessing, while the light or avg users (who need less than 1 gb of storage) will get very upset by this change.

[zapata]

Originally posted by ReuvenNY
Tuffmail allows 100MB attachments.

Eh kewl ... and how many e-mail providers support receiving messages with 100 MB attachments? I guess there are not many.

Get yourself a cheap www/ftp space.

[Trip]

The bane of large attachments has always been uploading the darn things...they take an eternity on even the best of broadband connections. The line at my college was the only connection I ever in my life have sent large emails on because it could get 10 MB/s both up and down. This has been beaten to death on other threads, but large stuff is best left for file sharing clients, bit torrent'ing, IM or FTP w/ links, IMHO.

Trip

[541]

I have mixed feelings on this. The extra storage is nice, but I doubt I'll ever come close to needing it. I am due for renewal soon, so I'm going to jump at the deal! But next year, I might have to look into other options; $49.95 is just too much for email, IMHO.

[ReuvenNY]

I think you can still pay the $49.95 for two years...

[MikhailT]

Originally posted by ReuvenNY
I think you can still pay the $49.95 for two years...

yea but it ****** me off they got rid of 3 year 60 bucks deal cuz that'll save us a lot of money in the end.

[Admin: please keep it polite. Thank you.]

[drkotsius]

In my opinion, the answer to this debate is market segmentation, as others have pointed out.

The price increase not only discourages potential users, it actually alienates people like me who will stay put for the foreseeable future (I recently joined Runbox taking up the 3-year plan). I strongly dislike paying for facilities I do not need (viz. the 10GB), because when this happens my money effectively subsidizes other users.

Conclusion: Runbox-lite...

[hajonez]

Hi Hans, Geir, Liz, Jan etc.

Congratulations on this latest development; it certainly took me somewhat by surprise! This increase in storage space further increases the gulf between Runbox and the competition. I believe that due to recent developments in the webmail industry, storage space has become one of the most critical elements in terms of luring prospective customers. This storage increase really differentiates Runbox from the free offerings and allows Runbox to rightly assert itself as a more flexible and powerful service.

I trust that there will be a number of existing customers who receive little direct benefit from this upgrade; indeed, I was using less than ten percent of my storage allocation prior to the upgrade. However, this upgrade represents a significant stand by Runbox and I believe that it will pay dividends in the coming months.

If nothing else, I think it feels good to be using an email service that really is at the forefront of a crowded email marketplace.

- Henry

[nomad]

Originally posted by drkotsius
The price increase not only discourages potential users, it actually alienates people like me who will stay put for the foreseeable future

As pointed out earlier in this thread, this might have been Runbox' intention: they are likely to concentrate on fewer power-/business users.

I plan to renew, using their 2years-offer for 49,95 USD. Who knows, what their subscription fees will be in two years? The email world might look totally different then

[ken274]

I strongly dislike paying for facilities I do not need (viz. the 10GB), because when this happens my money effectively subsidizes other users

I couldn't agree more!

Although I understand that over the last year or so storage space has become a hot issue in webmail, with services such as Gmail offering gigabytes instead of megabytes for the first time, and one which has the potential to persuade a user to choose one service over another this doesn't make the next logical step to increase this space still further. Whereas the 100MB or so typically offered before this 'revolution' was clearly inadequate, with the increase to 1 or 2GB offering real benefit to the user who could store all their email online for the first time, I believe the increase from 1GB to 10GB is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

Is there anyone here that can see themselves using a fraction of this space - indeed is there anyone who was near their storage limit before this move was announced? I really would like to know, as I myself cannot see how even the most wasteful user could ever hope to fill it up. For example, given the 30MB attachment limit, it would be necessary to receive 341+ emails to fill the space. If there truly are those out there that would use the space then I would be very suprised.

The fact that runbox doesn't expect the vast majority of users to utilise this space is demonstrated by the fact that the storage quota for files, which presumably is something that most users have little difficulty filling, is a mere 1/10th of that allocated to email. Perhaps a more sensible move would have been to give those users who didn't need the extra space an option to increase this instead!

There is a tendancy to sell computer software and services on the basis of meaningless numbers, and I think that this space increase is just that. Unfortunately, another number which most potential users will perhaps be more interested in is that reflecting the new, increased price of the service. Although in the past free webmail was unusable for the level of advertisements posted everywhere and was severely crippled featurewise, the likes of gmail demonstrate this is no longer the case. Given this, I believe that runbox should focus on its strengths - providing real customer service and support - rather than trying to play the numbers game.

Ken.

[carverrn]

Originally posted by BKB
Wow, this looks very cool, and exactly what I wanted. Thanks! So IMAP does support deleting attachments. Is this a recent thing (if anyone knows)? I'd love to see something like this on the web app, i.e. strip & download to Files. Thanks.

Exactly. Deleting the attachments would need to be a feature of the RMM web interface. Runbox does not specify the IMAP protocol so they can not add a feature thats not supported by the IMAP protocol since you still need the IMAP client to support the same feature.

Any IMAP client could implement deleting attachments because the basic commands needed to do so already exist in IMAP. It would just need to download the message, delete the original, strip off the attachments, then upload the new version without the attachments.

Regards,
Rich

[carverrn]

Runbox has never had a "lite" version. That's not the market they are targeting.

Anyone who has been watching Runbox for a while knows that they have been working towards business and high-end user email services.

The different markets have different requirements and demands. Runbox has very limited resources (e.g. only a few staff people) so they can't afford to spread these already strapped resources over servicing the demands of several markets.

This move is a business decision that I think makes sense given their current resources. Runbox's only source of revenue (that I know of) is their email service. So resources (time and money for support and development) would be better spent on fewer high-end users than more low-end users.

There are plenty of low-end user email services out there that range from FREE to $20/year. The big ones like Yahoo and Google have other sources of revenue (advertising) that can offset the cost of services. Runbox can't really compete against those.

But that's just my opinion.

Regards,
Rich

[Trip]

No, it's not just your opinion, Rich, it's mine too. I completely agree with the move. Runbox end's up with a higher-grade userbase and consolidates their support load (hopefully). Letting the low-end move to Fastmail, etc. won't bother Runbox much at all. It's a win-win all around.

Trip