Maintenance is a straightforward relationship, be it either ad-hoc or a regular amout of work. You can provide value here - you know your client and their needs, and you can help them with that in ways that others' can't.
Hosting is problematic as you're reselling someone else's (the hosting provider's) product. They have processes to deal with hardware failures, people that don't pay, domains that expire, security vulnerabilities etc. They also have the volume of customers to cope with this. You can't provide any extra value here.
Hosting is quite commoditised these days. So I pick a service provider and recommend to a client that they sign up and make me an admin. The responsibilities are clearer all round.
But perhaps most importantly is that it gives both of us the freedom to walk away: the client can just stop giving me work, and if I can't take it on, they're in a position to employ someone else.
Hey there! I'm a Software Engineer with a passion for helping others, which I do via YouTube usually. Feel free to reach out with business inquiries or if you'd just like to talk shop. Happy coding!
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I think I'll leave out self hosting for now. With maintenance though, has that been worth it for you with clients as opposed to just helping them get setup and then leaving any hosting issues that arise to the client and the hosting provider?
It depends a little on what is meant by "maintenance". It's very rare for a website to be finished and then require no work going forward. More likely there’ll be a continuous stream of things to be done, ranging from content/design/structural changes through to software updates and OS/hardware updates, and dealing with unplanned outages.
Some of that work (content, new functionality etc) results in tangible benefits to the client. Other things (security pactches, hardware replacement etc) is pure expense. My experience is that things are better all round when I can focus on the former. But that means putting in place a setup where there's a clear division of responsibilities, and one where I trust the hosting supplier to provide a good service to the client. I find PaaS products more suitable than VMs in this regard.
If something goes wrong I don't want to leave my client in the lurch, but equally there are times when I won't be immediately available to them. The arrangement needs to cater for that.
Hey there! I'm a Software Engineer with a passion for helping others, which I do via YouTube usually. Feel free to reach out with business inquiries or if you'd just like to talk shop. Happy coding!
Yeah, I'm thinking I'll definitely go with setting the client up with a reliable hosting platform instead of doing that myself. I'll also offer 30 days of clearly defined support (content changes). Then after 30 days if the client wants more work added I'll draft up a new contract. Maybe I'll just offer the client to pay a monthly price and that'll cover me updating content and making simple style changes...but that could get tricky with the client not knowing the difference between a simple content addition and an entirely new site component.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Maintenance yes; hosting a definite no.
Maintenance is a straightforward relationship, be it either ad-hoc or a regular amout of work. You can provide value here - you know your client and their needs, and you can help them with that in ways that others' can't.
Hosting is problematic as you're reselling someone else's (the hosting provider's) product. They have processes to deal with hardware failures, people that don't pay, domains that expire, security vulnerabilities etc. They also have the volume of customers to cope with this. You can't provide any extra value here.
Hosting is quite commoditised these days. So I pick a service provider and recommend to a client that they sign up and make me an admin. The responsibilities are clearer all round.
But perhaps most importantly is that it gives both of us the freedom to walk away: the client can just stop giving me work, and if I can't take it on, they're in a position to employ someone else.
Hey Erik,
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I think I'll leave out self hosting for now. With maintenance though, has that been worth it for you with clients as opposed to just helping them get setup and then leaving any hosting issues that arise to the client and the hosting provider?
Hi Terrance,
It depends a little on what is meant by "maintenance". It's very rare for a website to be finished and then require no work going forward. More likely there’ll be a continuous stream of things to be done, ranging from content/design/structural changes through to software updates and OS/hardware updates, and dealing with unplanned outages.
Some of that work (content, new functionality etc) results in tangible benefits to the client. Other things (security pactches, hardware replacement etc) is pure expense. My experience is that things are better all round when I can focus on the former. But that means putting in place a setup where there's a clear division of responsibilities, and one where I trust the hosting supplier to provide a good service to the client. I find PaaS products more suitable than VMs in this regard.
If something goes wrong I don't want to leave my client in the lurch, but equally there are times when I won't be immediately available to them. The arrangement needs to cater for that.
Good luck!
Hi Erik,
Yeah, I'm thinking I'll definitely go with setting the client up with a reliable hosting platform instead of doing that myself. I'll also offer 30 days of clearly defined support (content changes). Then after 30 days if the client wants more work added I'll draft up a new contract. Maybe I'll just offer the client to pay a monthly price and that'll cover me updating content and making simple style changes...but that could get tricky with the client not knowing the difference between a simple content addition and an entirely new site component.