* The Business of Software

A former community discussing the business of software, from the smallest shareware operation to Microsoft. A part of Joel on Software.

We're closed, folks!

Links:

» Business of Software FAQ
» The Business of Software Conference (held every fall, usually in Boston)
» Forum guidelines (Please read before posting!)

Moderators:

Andy Brice
Successful Software

Doug Nebeker ("Doug")

Jonathan Matthews
Creator of DeepTrawl, CloudTrawl, and LeapDoc

Nicholas Hebb
BreezeTree Software

Bob Walsh
host, Startup Success Podcast author of The Web Startup Success Guide and Micro-ISV: From Vision To Reality

Patrick McKenzie
Bingo Card Creator

Please review my new web site

Yesterday I've launched a new web site: http://bit.ly/1dcvjhD - this is a complementary service for the software I sale.

I'd be glad to hear any opinions about it.  Does it look good? Will you pay money on a web site like this? Any feedback is welcome.

Dmitry.
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
It looks good; but you don't seem to be doing much marketing on this site, not even a landing page.

If I needed a broadcast service I would consider yours.

My understanding is that b is used for bits and B is used for bytes so I found your use of b and B inconsistent. This is important for a service like yours.

Furthermore you are using English but as far as I know all English speaking countries use the decimal point for the separator between integer and the fractional part of numbers.

I don't know about your competition but I guess that the pricing plan should differentiate the number of listeners. If Plan A is your budget plan then I would cut down the number of listeners to a "beginner" level, maybe ~50 ?
koan Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
It looks very basic, like a prototype site. Could do with a nice template, some graphics, etc, IMHO although YMMV.
Scorpio Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
It's nice, clean and to the point.

It looks that it's for a niche audience that don't need much explanations.

Two minor changes IMO:
* Remove "Welcome!". No purpose to be there
* Highlight one of the plans as "recommended"
edddy Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
Site looks good.  Pricing looks reasonable. 

My father is a musician and pays a lot of money for a fast, business-class internet connection so that he can host his own shoutcast server (for playing shows on SecondLife, etc., where he could have a dozen or more listeners). 

A service like this seems like a pretty good idea.  Tiered pricing based on bandwidth, as you are doing, is probably the only way to go here... that stuff ain't cheap :)
Out of curiosity, how do you handle folks that go over their bandwidth cap, do you have a per MB overage rate or bump them up to the next tier for the month?  I wouldn't recommend cutting off a customer's broadcast when they hit their cap during a performance :)
James A. Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
> how do you handle folks that go over their bandwidth cap

That's what I think every time I see a bandwidth limitation in a pricing page. It's usually not the limit that scares me, just the potential overage charges. Some scurrilous companies (not you) like to make their money here, a bit like data roaming with a cell plan.
Jonathan Matthews Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
@koan - thanks for the bits and bytes and decimal point advice, I'll fix all the typos. The web site content was written in hurry :)
About marketing - there's one big button on the index page which invites to purchase a package - should be enough I think. I don't want to bother people with too much marketing BS :)

@Scorpio - actually there is a template I've paid for... I decided to use a simple yet good looking one. I'll see how sales go, maybe I'll change it in the future.

@edddy - I agree that "Welcome" word is not very good, but what do you think I should write there instead?
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
@James, Jonathan - it will just cut off the stream when bandwidth limit exceeded. That won't be a surprise for the user - this is a monthly bandwidth, users will see in the control panel if they are close to their limit.

Charging high $ for the additional traffic is not a business model here of course. The "Plans" page clearly states that - "no hidden costs" :)
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
I would not buy it, after 5 seconds I did not know what it does or how it would help me or why I would need it.  But I do not think you are targeting people like me...

Instead of "Welcome" you should either scrap it completely or use the fact that most people visiting your site are sound oriented and should use appropriate words (for example, "Listen!")

I am not in love with the colour scheme, it is clean but very very grey with a splash of blue.  There's not much to look at other than a wall of text.

It looks a bit too templately and I would think twice about putting my credit card through this. (but again, I don't really know what it does, if it is something I needed right now I don't think that would be a huge problem).
DanDan Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
You have some duplicate content on the support page about playout software. Point 1 appears twice.

As this is targeted at your existing customers, I think it will work well. However, if you want to use it to draw additional customers to the main product, I think you need a lot more content about internet radio. HTH
Andrew Gibson Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
Looks ok, but I do have few nitpics:

1. The biggest text is completely useless "Welcome!". Remove or, better yet, replace with something that sells the service.

2. Don't categorize "Getting started" tutorial as "support". Support is where I go when something is broken with your product, it has negative connotation. You can replace the wording with: "Learn how to start you own internet radio station by reading [our guide]" ([] means link to the page)

3. Don't promise 99.9% uptime. You can't promise that and a technically minded person (like me) gets an impression of dishonesty.

4. Be confident about who your audience is. On the landing page all you have is "SHOUTcast hosting", "Centova Control panel" that imply that your visitor is highly knowledgeable and doesn't need to be explained what those are.

On the other hand, in https://v2.radioboss.fm/support/shoutcast/ you talk about who developed protocol, who they sold to etc. Tighten your copy and remove fluff like that.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
I think "Welcome" is nice and personal.  I like that when I deal with a business.
PSB136 Send private email
Friday, August 30, 2013
 
 
@Krzysztof
>> "Don't promise 99.9% uptime. You can't promise that and a technically minded person (like me) gets an impression of dishonesty."


99.9% uptime is quite easily doable, especially if he's using a stable backend (Amazon E2 / Amazon S3, or one the many competitors). Also, redundancy helps.

Just FYI 99.9% uptime means there's 8.76581 hours of downtime in the year. It's very easy in this day and age to get below that 8.7 hour number. We certainly do.

If you're on a cheap host like GoDaddy, Bluehost, or one of the many other "unlimited bandwidth" companies, then yes, I agree 99.9% uptime is unrealistic. But I don't suspect Kuzmitskiy is using one of those hosts.
Wyatt O'Day Send private email
Saturday, August 31, 2013
 
 
Now if he were to claim 99.999% uptime you'd have a right to be skeptical. It's enormously expensive to get under 5.25 minutes of downtime per year. I don't even think Google hits that mark (there was something like a 20 minute outage earlier this month).

But he didn't claim 99.999%. Only 99.9%.
Wyatt O'Day Send private email
Saturday, August 31, 2013
 
 
Krzysztof, I found your issue with the 99.9% uptime odd too. Someone can't promise that, I agree (you wouldn't be able to keep that promise if some unforeseen extreme circumstance happens) but he just said it. It's up to the reader to decide if it's a promise or a stat based on history from the statement "99.9% uptime". As the latter it's very easy to believe.

As someone who does downtime monitoring my problem, if anything, is that websites are generally better than that ;)
Jonathan Matthews Send private email
Saturday, August 31, 2013
 
 
@Wyatt

Amazon itself can't promise such uptime. AWS and S3 had more than one major outages that laster for hours and took down major websites, e.g. http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/22/3539756/reddit-flipboard-minecraft-amazon-outage

You can't guarantee something that is outside of your control.

He's hosting on a single,  low-end VPS service servint.net. This is not some robustly redundant architecture. A simple hard-drive failure will take him down for hours. A typo in his code will take him down. A DDOS attack will take him down. Those aren't extraordinary circumstances (the way, for example, a data center blowing up is, which also happened http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/06/01/1715247/explosion-at-theplanet-datacenter-drops-9000-servers).

@Jonathan

When I see unqualified "99.9% uptime", I read it as a guarantee of future performance, not "so far, in 10 days we've been running, we've had 99.9% uptime" or "we'll try our best to provide 99.9% uptime but if not, though luck" or "99.9% uptime unless something unexpected happens that will take us down for more than that".

I would also consider legal ramifications. By the virtue of being prominently placed on the landing page, this is clearly a major selling point. What if he doesn't deliver and some crazy customer sues him for damages. Good luck convincing the judge that by "99.9% uptime" he didn't really mean 99.9% uptime.

Also, such promise without SLA is empty anyway. There's no penalty for not delivering that uptime. The standard SLA in those cases reimburses the customer for downtime.

To summarize: it's an empty promise he cannot keep and therefore is misleading. If he understands the fact that he cannot give such guarantee, it's intentionally misleading i.e. a lie, prominently placed on his website.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk Send private email
Saturday, August 31, 2013
 
 
>> "When I see unqualified '99.9% uptime', I read it as a guarantee of future performance, not 'so far, in 10 days we've been running, we've had 99.9% uptime' or 'we'll try our best to provide 99.9% uptime but if not, though luck' or '99.9% uptime unless something unexpected happens that will take us down for more than that'."


Ok, that's a fair point. I interpreted the claim differently than you did. So if we had divergent readings of that "feature point" then his customers will also likely have similar misunderstandings.

So I guess the solution to the problem is that he should explicitly state what the uptime means and what the compensation will be if he fails to meet the stated uptime.
Wyatt O'Day Send private email
Saturday, August 31, 2013
 
 
@Krzysztof - thank you very much for the feedback, very helpful and now I have some to-do items :)
Regarding 99.9% uptime - this is real. Stream hosting services I sell are hosted on dedicated servers (not VPS) - it's only the web site hosted on VPS. Where does 99.9 number came from? That's what promised by dedicated server company, I just passed it onto site.

Of course I'm not 100% confident in it because there are too many things which are out of my direct control... But as competitors say "Unlimited listeners/Unlimited bandwidth"* and some of them even promise "100% uptime" - I think my 99.9% uptime and real limits for listeners and bandwidth are extremely honest :)

* of course there's a fine print somewhere explaining that unlimited it, actually, limited.
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Sunday, September 01, 2013
 
 
@PSB136 - I like that "Welcome" word too, but I'm starting to think that it's not the best option to sell something...
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Sunday, September 01, 2013
 
 
Your plan has minimum 128kbps but sample data transfer calculations is using 96kbps
fp615 Send private email
Sunday, September 01, 2013
 
 
On the software website you say audience is scalable but from the plans it seems there may be max 999, there is no mention about more listeners...
fp615 Send private email
Sunday, September 01, 2013
 
 
@fp615 - it's "up to 128k". As this plan has pretty low data transfer limit, most people will use it for 64 and 96k bitrates.
Most hosting providers offer low limits like 20 or 50 listeners, which means if a station suddenly gets 100 listeners - not everyone will be able to listen. That's where 999 listeners come in handy :)
But as I see you asking about it, it may not be clear from the web site... I think I should add more content there explaining all this.
Thanks.
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Sunday, September 01, 2013
 
 
> That's where 999 listeners come in handy

Hang on, are you saying a it's max of 999 listeners worldwide?  That's nothing!  If this takes off then you'll need to accommodate one hundred times (or more) than that.
PSB136 Send private email
Sunday, September 01, 2013
 
 
@PSB136 - vast majority of Internet radio stations don't have even 100 concurrent listeners, let alone 1000 or "one hundred times (or more) than that" :) That's why most of the stream hosts who have listener limit set to 1000 advertise it as "unlimited listeners". I write 999 because it's more honest that "limited unlimited" :)
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Sunday, September 01, 2013
 
 
So 40 million monthly listeners is the exception?  http://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2012/aug/06/tunein-radio-funding
PSB136 Send private email
Monday, September 02, 2013
 
 
@PSB136 no, it's not an exception.

They say it's 40 million listeners for all stations hosted on TuneIn. As said in the article, they have "more than 70,000 radio stations", which means average station has 40M/70K = 571 listeners monthly. Of course, those 571 listeners do not listen to station at the same time - they are spread during the course of a day, and average number of concurrent listeners (who tune it at the same time) is significantly lower: about 50-100.

With my 999 concurrent listener limit a station can be actually heard by thousands listeners during a month. As you see, it's more than enough for almost everyone.
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Monday, September 02, 2013
 
 
PSB136 , Dmitry's point about < 1000 listeners being more than enough made sense to me right away when I thought about the one experience in my life with this sort of thing:  a friend of mine is a obsessed with Second Life, the online virtual world, and occasionally he hosts "dance parties" within Second Life, where the "avatars" arrive in costume and listen to whatever tunes he wants to play.  If he has 50 friends show up and (thus tune in concurrently), it's a roaring success.

So, these sorts of "your own private radio station" are really, at least it struck me from this experience, sort of like what used to be called "vanity publishing" a book (though self publishing is getting more respect these days).  It's more like
Racky Send private email
Monday, September 02, 2013
 
 
@Racky:
Old fashioned vanity publishing is not the same as self-publishing, if you mean self-publishing via Amazon (Kindle and/or CreateSpace), which is a great platform. It makes traditional publishers look like relics from the Arc.
Scorpio Send private email
Monday, September 02, 2013
 
 
Thanks for all the feedback - I've updated the web site (added new content and fixed some 'bugs"). "Welcome" word is removed from the start page :)

Is it better now?
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Monday, September 02, 2013
 
 
Well you still say 100Gb AutoDJ on the index page.

And you have this:
> 1kb = 1000 b; 1 GB = 1024 MB; 1 MB = 1024 KB.

Firstly you are inconsistent with k = kilo but K = kilo in some places.

But this is worse:
1k = 1000 but 1M = 1024K

Are you using kilo = 1024 or kilo = 1000 ?

Choose one and don't mix.
koan Send private email
Monday, September 02, 2013
 
 
I agree with others that you should add more content to the front page - both for marketing and SEO.

Also, my personal design preference would be to add min-height:200px to the .widget-wrapper style so that the three blocks at the bottom of the front page have a uniform height.
Nicholas Hebb Send private email
Monday, September 02, 2013
 
 
@koan - that's OK
1 kilobit = 1000 bit and 1 KB = 1024 B (B = byte).
I'm now developing a JavaScript calculator so people won't bother with it at all :)

@Nicholas - thanks for the min-width advice, now it looks better :) For the content, I think I'll go with minimal content... I don't want a wall of text on the front page.
Kuzmitskiy Dmitry Send private email
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
 
 
Page can not be scaled on the iPad . This is a bad idea.
Are you use bootstrap?
Alex Vasilevsky Send private email
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
 
 

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
 
Powered by FogBugz