Ok, I got the bait
Let me give an example with reference to the ovh thread.
Ovh 2008 range include:
EG 2008
Intel Core2Duo E6750
2008 RAM 2 GB DDR 2
Hard disk 2x 250 GB
Type of disk SATA2 RAID HARD 1
Bandwidth 1 Gbps
Traffic limit unlimited
Fixed IP 1 address
IP Fail-over +4 addresses
MG 2008
Intel Core2Quad Q6600
2008 RAM 2 GB DDR 2
Hard disk 2x 250 GB
Type of disk SATA2 RAID HARD 1
Bandwidth 1 Gbps
Traffic limit unlimited
Fixed IP 1 address
IP Fail-over +4 addresses
These servers are identical apart from the CPU. The prices are different too..
£79.99 for the EG and £109.99 for the MG
Over the course of a year this equates to a difference of £360 so is this cost justified?
No because there is very little difference int the price of the CPUs.
Joe Punter can purchase an E6750 for £125 or the Q6600 for £170 (both retail - cheaper for OEM versions)
That is a clear example of a webhoster taking the pi$$. Over the course of one year OVH are charging the customer £360 more for a part which cost them under £50 more. If the customer keeps this server for two years he's paid around £620 more than he should have.
It's the same with RAM upgrades. Ram is now dirt cheap and yet some of the ram upgrades effectively mean that a webhost is making a return from month 3 onwards.
It's the same with disks. Upgrade a disk from 160Gb to 250Gb and the customer is expected to pay £5,£7,£10 a month extra for a part which only costs £9 more outright!
There have been a lot of excuses of this practice such as 'higher energy costs', 'support etc'.
The power difference in a 250Gb to a 160gb is small if at all. The support theory doesn't wash either as this is not an extra part to support as there is still only one disk.
There is no doubt about it. Some hosters are blatantly profiteering from upgrades. If they want to do that - fine.
There are some much better value hosters out there who don't do that. Some give good deals so why can't the others?