Approaching Matterport Hosting Limit Warning Email7507
62342 6 6
|DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user|
I received this email from Matterport on Monday, 23 July 2018. Time to start "deleting" models. Something that we should not have to do.
To get some badly needed among your BEST clients – Matterport Service Providers that scan frequently - change the hosting agreement so that you follow the advice of @Queen_City_3D (whom speaks for all of us on this topic):
✓ when a Matterport Space is set to private, do not count the model towards the monthly hosting limit.
As I said in this WGAN Forum discussion, if Matterport had a cloud hosted backup and restore solution, we would not be asking [for this].
Matterport, I look forward to a favorable response.
What are your thoughts on this topic?
|Post 1 IP flag post|
|HarlanHambright private msg quote post Address this user|
|$19/50 models doesn’t seem all that unreasonable. I just invoiced my biggest client with 320 tours for a year’s worth and they were fine with it.|
|Post 2 IP flag post|
|immersivespaces private msg quote post Address this user|
|I don't see them changing this policy as it remains a significant revenue stream for them.
The number one request I get from customers is that they want to self-host models, especially for offline and secure system viewing. That and the lack of ability to make backups of scans are the two most significant deficiencies in the Matterport system.
|Post 3 IP flag post|
|Queen_City_3D private msg quote post Address this user|
|@HarlanHambright It sounds like many of your scans involve ongoing hosting. That is not the case for us. We only have a handful of models (right now it's less than a dozen) where the client pays ongoing hosting. For us the majority are real estate related and we tell them we'll host the model for 1 year for them. Once the house sells, we have been turning models to private and that's that.
$19/50 models adds up pretty fast. At 600 models (300 over limit) that's $114/month extra. At 1000 models (700 over) that's $266/month.
That's on top of the $149/month that you already pay for the top "business" hosting account.
And don't forget that you also paid a processing fee for that model when you are over your 3,7, or 11 (depending on your cloud plan) "free" processes.
So then if you want to avoid paying extra for models that you are no longer showcasing you are forced to delete them.
By doing so you lose all the statistics for that model which just plain sucks. Ask Matterport how much they like to rave about their statistics. It's a shame that you lose those viewing numbers by deleting models.
And then there's the hastle and inconvenience of having to go through hundred of models to determine which ones are no longer worth keeping because they're not being viewed.
We recently had a REALTOR client ask us to turn off a model of a home that hasn't sold as the Sellers had something happen in their life where they are pulling it from market and will try again in several months. Previous to this crack down there'd be no issue with setting it private and turning it back on afterwards. Now though, we can't delete the model because we know it'll be needed down the road and it's no good to the client at present and it's just plain stupid that we'd have to have it count toward hosting.
To be clear, I feel as long as you are paying for some sort of hosting account there should be no limit to the number of models you have. Matterport should be encouraging MSPs to produce as many models as possible because each one is $19 or $38(if over 100 scans) in Matterport's pocket. The model limits can give you pause to ask if Matterport is the best solution for the job or if other tour formats would be better.
For example, I discussed with a Property Manager having scans done of rental properties where the model would be turned on when the property is vacant to advertise it for rent and turned off when it's occupied. This would be a market for dozens if not hundreds of additional scans for us (and thousands if a practical solution for other markets and other MSPs), but we decided it's not financially feasible with Matterport hosting limits. The Property Manager says his landlord clients figure when the property is occupied that it will always be occupied and so they won't foot the bill to host a model that they have to pay for even when they're not "using" it. It's a shame because that is a lot of business that Matterport won't get.
Same for AEC industry and pre-construction scans. It would be nice for many builders to have that on file to provide to their clients if ever there was a question of where wire or piping was run, but the implications of long-term hosting on a model that might get 1 view every 5 years doesn't make sense.
At the very least I feel that models that you've set to private which aren't being viewed by anyone should not count to hosting limit. From a financial standpoint I feel I'm being forced to discard these models because it makes no sense to pay for them if they're turned off, and yet I don't want to lose their stats and I'm worried that perhaps I'll need them again.
I still say it's a stupid policy that should go away entirely to encourage more matterport models and then the MSPs and Matterport both make more money.
|Post 4 IP flag post|
|DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user|
Originally Posted by @Queen_City_3D
Like he said.
|Post 5 IP flag post|
This topic is archived. Start new topic?