Ideas

Blue Host is a good host... 6.95 a month and I have been pleased with the speed, reliability and customer support.

If you are interested contact TechGuy or myself as we both use Blue Host and either would really like to get he referral fee that Blue Host offers.

Yes, sure there are other hosts. But, they are more about websites not applications. If it were all linked through a single site the costs could be shared to get high quality hosting.

Because most FB applications ether require more then low-in hosting provides or have space to share. Thats why I think it would be a good idea to make a host just for FaceBook apps we could cut costs and get higher quality benefits.

Kevin,

How frequent have you heard the complaint from facebook developer?

I don't know why someone who develops software for Facebook would have hosting problems at min. $6.95 a month specified by ccozad.

That said, why not. I can see how one can serve a portal for Facebook apps. If the site provides tools to develop them quickly, they would come.

I have a website that I developed, mostly as an experiment, http://www.puritysoft.com. You're welcome to work with me. It's appropriately a software company and already ranks 4/10 (Google page ranking), if you don't mind the name.

Nothing fancy right now. I's mostly a shareware download site in jsp and html, , and I'm pretty sure it supports php as well --though, no offense to anyone, but I'm not a big fan.

I'm currently using Grails for my personal projects. There is this great web 2.0 plugin:

http://docs.codehaus...388#comment-45580388

...Great RAD without the compromises, and still in warm and fuzzy JVM....

Despite the low cost cost of blue host, it is not a low end service. I hate to be pushing a commercial service so much, but they have me hooked.

Here is a list of features.

http://www.bluehost....om/tell_me_more.html

Everything a facebook application needs and more.

But beyond hosting, if you can create some value add with additional tools, you have something.

I am aware of bluehost, I even referred them to you before ccozad. I just think it could be done better if there was a more specialized host. But, it is a low end service compared to other services out there.

If you teamed up with other developers you could cut costs and be able to afford high speed servers and gain more control over the server.

FYI, BlueHost and HostMonster are the same company. I've 6 sites/blogs on a HostMonster server and there is, on the average, a one-hour downtime a week and response times between 200 - 500 msecs. They also cram over 1,000 accounts onto one server....

"average, a one-hour downtime a week"
That is a lot of time for a paid host to be down.

"That is a lot of time for a paid host to be down."

You get what you pay for, but you want something free?

Let me steer us back to the "idea."

I've just discovered a new (new to me, anyway) development platform that might be of interest --in fact, I was just alloting to it in the forums:

Check it out:

http://www.appcelerator.org/about.html

I can envision developers using normal, free "personal pages" from hosts (does Yahoo still offer these) for developers to author a well defined application in an crowdsource fashion. The only "host" per se is the controlling application using its "http" service and simply injecting the free pages, which contain appcelerator markup. You'll probably need to check it out to get my grift.

It does seem like BlueHost and HostMonster is the same company, but your comment "average, a one-hour downtime a week" definitely makes me think that they don't use the same servers. I haven't found any downtime on bluehost since I've been on them. It's been very reliable and great for the price.

Will bluehost grow with me into much more than some well visited blogs? Maybe not, but for the price it can't be beat.

I don't see any problem with this idea - yes there may be other hosting companies around but unless any of them are specifically targeted at FB apps you're not in direct competition. Do some research, make the hosting the easiest part of developing a FB app and advertise on FB itself and even if you are a little more expensive people will pay.

still not sure, but not the worse idea out there now

Here is the basic rundown. Lets say 5 developers want hosting for there site. They could each spend $5 on a cheep hosting plan (with very little control over the management or there plan specs) or they could team and spend the same amount $5 each and share a $25 dedicated server.

They clearly benefit more from a dedicated server and increased specs.

So, any thoughts?

Then they still have 1/5 of a server. If any one application becomes really popular then you have the same problems you have on bad hosts.

It is kind of like getting room mates to rent a larger place to live. Yes you have a larger "better" place to live, but you also now have room mates.....

I think you need to check out low cost hosting solutions again. There are some great deals out there. Some are so competitively priced that I almost wonder if they are a loss leader for the parent company.

"Then they still have 1/5 of a server"
Ya, but that is 1/5 compared to 1/100+ or even 1/500+. Also, compare the amount of control you have over the server. You have absolutely no control over the server on those discount plans.

This idea seems to make sense to me.

Souns like a great idea, good luck

I agree with most, I sounds like a good idea!! Why Not!!

I agree with most, It sounds like a good idea!! Why Not !!!

Rent a server for $25? Did I miss something? Is there another revenue stream here? Where is your profit coming from? Servers, Maintenance, Lines, etc. don't come that cheap!

I think you missed something perhaps. I was talking about the benefits of this as a shared control plan.

There is no different revenue model. Also, I don't plan on messing things up with a unique revenue model. NO new revenue model. I think sticking to the same revenue model all host have is current practice makes sense.

The difference is a focal point around a different group of developers and offer more control. What I am saying is users could gain more benefits and cut costs if they were grouped together instead of single entity's.

I think you got beaten to the punch:
http://joyent.com/developers/facebook/

This application gives you free hosting at the moment for all your facebook apps. Stupid fast servers too.