independant server
Hi.
In an earlier post I told you about a friend who did not know if he should hire a webdesigner who was asking for his credit card number and was insisting on building the site only on his server, where my friend would have to pay fees(FMI see post "is this right?" towards the bottom of this fourm).
Well, my friend decided to cut his losses with that guy and a law suit has been filed. But we are running into the same problem with the server issue(not the credit card issue) with this next guy.
To restate the problem, my friend needs a website built now, but later thinks he might want to hire his own person to manage it, do the updates etc. He does not know when this will be, or if it will ever be, but just in case he would like the website built on a server he chooses and pays for independently. This "independant server"(what I call it) would be combatiable with the progamming this designer chooses to use(or we will pick one that is).
This person he is looking at is also refusing to build the new site on any server but his own. I can not figure out why this is but I am thinking this might be an control issue or a trust issue. If the designer built on a server belonging to my friend he would lose control of it. But would it help if my friend paid in full instead of payments? Am I right ?is it a trust issue? Or is there some other reason I am not knowledgable enough to understand?
My friend is afraid of inflated maintainance fees and becoming dependant on this one designer, this is another reason why he wants to use an independant server.
PS
Does anyone have an example of a comprehensive service contract?
PSS
Thank you for the posts about this issue on my last board. I did not see them till after writing this one =( as they were added later. However I feel I will go ahead and leave this post up to see if anyone has anything more to add.
God Bless
Suzanne posted this at 04:21 — 29th May 2003.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
I do development on my own server, usually, test it and then install it on the client's server. Why? Because I like to get paid for my work and I run a much higher risk than the client of being out $$ ANYWAY, and it's much higher if I develop on their servers.
Yes, contracts help. But they are not guarantees. We each do what we need to do to protect ourselves. By benefit of paying in installments, you can have a project rolled out in sections, so that the work is installed on your servers and you pay the developer to continue. Through this process, you develop a trust of each other.
However, many developers insist on having it on their servers because the real money is in ongoing maintainance and hosting.
Brian Farkas posted this at 05:21 — 1st June 2003.
They have: 1,015 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
I'm not totally clear on whether the designer simply wants to develop the site on his server (which is understandable, for the reasons Suzanne mentioned), or whether he wants to host the site on his server only for an indefinite amount of time. If it is only the former, then you will have control over where you want to move the site after the site is actually completed. Bottom line, while it is understandable that he will want to protect his interests (getting paid), he should not be holding you to only his server for the life of the site.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.