The cloud version nobody asked for?

[slim]

What do people think of the newly announced cloud version of WHMCS? 

I note that there isnt a single request that I could find for it in the ideas website, and being a host the idea of hosting my own billing system isnt one of the pain points so I was curious if there was any demand for such a product.

Edited September 5 by slim

[Humanbeing]

This unfortunate move will take their focus away from their core product. By launching a cloud version, they're now competing with the very hosts who use their software. This forces their customers to fund their own extinction and hand over control of their sensitive data to a direct competitor. No serious business would want that.

[Damo]

We won't go cloud. Kayako burned us with that and SupportPal is brilliant. 
Where's the announcement? 

[bear]

20 hours ago, Mandalorian said:

By launching a cloud version, they're now competing with the very hosts who use their software. 

I don't understand how a cloud version of WHMCS will compete with hosts? I'd never use such a thing, but unless they're also going to start selling hosting (would not be shocked), I'm not seeing the correlation there.

[Humanbeing]

33 minutes ago, bear said:

I don't understand how a cloud version of WHMCS will compete with hosts? I'd never use such a thing, but unless they're also going to start selling hosting (would not be shocked), I'm not seeing the correlation there.

Currently, hosts provide hosting for the software for themselves and others. But when the software itself takes on the role of the host, and other hosts become dependent on it, that takes something away from the hosts and diminishes their value and autonomy.

 

 

[slim]

14 hours ago, Damo said:

We won't go cloud. Kayako burned us with that and SupportPal is brilliant. 
Where's the announcement? 

https://www.whmcs.com/hosted

It was posted on X I think.

[slim]

17 hours ago, bear said:

I don't understand how a cloud version of WHMCS will compete with hosts

Will you say the same thing when cPanel becomes cloud hosted to?

[bear]

11 hours ago, slim said:

Will you say the same thing when cPanel becomes cloud hosted to?

Kind of alarmist, but please do go on about how that would be possible or plausible. 
Billing software and software that runs a server are not at all comparable, but enlighten me. 

[slim]

9 hours ago, bear said:

Kind of alarmist, but please do go on about how that would be possible or plausible. 

My point is, we are all web hosts in the business of hosting applications. There appears to be zero demand from us for this product, meaning its was created by other motives, none of which I can think is good for us. I would rather go through the pain of moving before giving up that level of control.

[Damo]

@slim SaaS for billing systems is not new and it does have support from users. Not everyone, but there's certainly a market for it. 
 

I'm with @bear on trying to understand how WHM/cPanel goes 'hosted'. Licensing by IP, environment (bare metal/vps) and accounts is, for now, all that's really an option. 

[bear]

9 hours ago, slim said:

was created by other motives, none of which I can think is good for us. I would rather go through the pain of moving before giving up that level of control.

The other motives would likely be to simplify supporting it for themselves. With a centralized installation fully under their control, there would be less effort in troubleshooting issues, and a likely higher cost to end users (a constant effort with corporate ownership). Strongly doubt, at least at this point, that it's nefarious to "get their hands on data", since they could already do that likely without fear of discovery, at least for a time. 

As for "nobody wants this"? As with most changes to WHMCS, it barely involves user feedback these days. There have been requests that had lots of interest that were ignored, and others that barely had a few votes (or wasn't asked for) that were implemented. Back to the "it's all about what's the most profitable" thinking there. Easiest to do, and what will generate the most profit, or at least buzz about the product. 

No, I don't trust cloud applications, and would not consider this change here. 

[WHMCS John]

Hi all,

Over the years we have received a steady stream of feedback from users that a Hosted Edition of the WHMCS application is desirable, and got quite close to launching an earlier iteration ~8 years ago. Indeed the that page has existed to track demand for this offering since 2018. The responsibility of managing the infrastructure of many businesses billing systems is not one we take lightly, and now with the power of webpros.cloud it's something we can deliver. 

Consider the popularity of SaaS services like Shopify; many web-agencies, small businesses and MSPs don't have the expertise or personnel to configure and manage their billing system. So we are providing this service of a curated, secure and always up-to-date WHMCS instance. 

The webpros.cloud service is specifically designed not to compete with our partners. This will be a bring-your-own-hosting service, so whilst the WHMCS instance is hosted by Webpros, they'll need to source reseller, VPS or dedicated hosting from partners to connect up to it.

This will not detract from work of the "on-prem" WHMCS I suppose you could call it; it's quite simply a hosted edition of the latest release.

[bear]

17 hours ago, WHMCS John said:

Over the years we have received a steady stream of feedback from users that a Hosted Edition of the WHMCS application is desirable

Please show that "steady stream of feedback" link. 

[WHMCS John]

Hi @bear,

We collect product demand through many channels; user surveys, partner meetings and at conferences, the feature request system, cancellation surveys etc... Interest in a hosted WHMCS service has increased 63% in the past year alone:

[bear]

Will need to take your word for it, since there's no way for us to substantiate that. I've personally never heard anyone state they'd like to hand over control of billing in WHMCS, but my circle is smaller. 

A further note, up 63% is a relative term. If no one wanted it, but x number of users now do, the vague starting point allows for some "fudge room" in gauging increase of interest. 

Edited September 11 by bear

[Kian]

I agree that for the vast majority of WHMCS users a hosted version probably holds little appeal. That said, over the years I've come across companies that actually would have welcomed it.

I'm thinking of web agencies that provide hosting to their clients but rely on third-party providers to deliver it. Just as they outsourced hosting because they weren't equipped to manage it themselves, they would have liked to offload the burden of running WHMCS as well.

The same applies to professionals who don't use WHMCS for hosting at all but rather for managing licenses, software, invoicing or even just the ticketing system.

There aren't many, but they do exist. Personally, I even signed up for the program myself, since the idea of never having to "see" a server again is quite appealing. Whether it makes sense to invest in it ultimately comes down to price, as always.

As for priorities, I agree that this service was at the very bottom of my own list but it is what it is.

[WHMCS Carlos]

I completely understand where this reaction comes from — the traditional WHMCS audience is very IT-proficient and comfortable running their own infrastructure.

That said, we’ve actually been getting requests for a hosted or managed version for quite a few years now. More recently, we’ve also seen growing interest from partners who sell services outside or adjacent to traditional hosting — agencies, MSPs, and other service providers who need a billing and automation platform but don’t want (or can’t justify) the overhead of maintaining servers just to run WHMCS.

Many of our existing reseller-focused partners have also told us that hosting WHMCS itself isn’t really a profit driver for them. What matters more is helping their customers get to market faster and with less operational burden.

So while it may not seem immediately valuable to long-time users, there is a real demand for it in adjacent markets — and ultimately, the work we’re doing here will also benefit the self-hosted version by driving improvements in compliance, scalability, and reliability across the board.

[bear]

1 hour ago, WHMCS Carlos said:

there is a real demand for it in adjacent markets

And at some point, if this flies, "traditional" users will be pushed/forced into this as well, I feel. Just like removing the owned license, control over supporting the product becoming totally in-house will be another cost saving measure to increase profits. Reduced customization options, simplified support for the WHMCS staff and the potential for "one hack gets them all" despite whatever security is implemented. "Juicy target" I think is the term. 

[WHMCS Carlos]

I get where you’re coming from, Bear — those are fair worries, especially given how the industry has evolved over the years.

For context, I’ve been in the hosting space since 1999 — seen most of these cycles play out. The self-hosted version and the hosting community around it are and will remain the core of WHMCS. That’s not something we’re moving away from.

Reaching into adjacent markets isn’t about replacing hosts or forcing anyone into a managed version — it’s about expanding WHMCS’ relevance to businesses that don’t have the infrastructure or IT skills to self-host.

And to be clear — when I took over, my first order of business was to address the things that had been missing for years: proper credit notes, PEPPOL support, compliance improvements, and more. Those are already in motion and part of what’s coming next.

So no — this isn’t about taking control away from anyone. It’s about fixing what needs fixing and growing WHMCS in a way that benefits both hosts and new markets.

[bear]

2 hours ago, WHMCS Carlos said:

The self-hosted version and the hosting community around it are and will remain the core of WHMCS.

I semi-recall that same notion around the owned licenses. The catch phrase at the time was "you will always own this version", but the catch was you can't ever update and remain on owned. Leased only, to stay current.
Time will tell how it goes with this. 

[Humanbeing]

1 hour ago, bear said:

Time will tell how it goes with this. 

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[gei]

The reason that this makes no sense is that there are zero existing clients who would go this route - no one would go from self hosted to cloud hosted.

Which means that this could only possibly appeal to new clients.

But I would imagine that given the history that webpros has of exploiting clients with constant price increases, any new hosting company would be foolish to start off with any webpros product.

[websavers]

How will this work with addons? Will they simply not be capable of being used/installed, or is there some amount of user-specific storage for activating them? I ask because WHMCS has for years been missing key core functionality that can only be replicated with addons.

WHMCS is notorous for calling obvious bugs 'feature requests' and relegating them to the feature request system.  Which is a feature request system that rarely gets consulted by WHMCS devs anymore, because they favour WebPros priorities that WHMCS users predominantly don't actually care about. I mention this because if feature requests that users actually want aren't implemented that often, and cloud users might not be able to use addons, then how will WHMCS ever be usable in cloud form?

Examples of requests for functionality that have existed for years, many around a decade or longer that didn't take priority over ridiculous WebPros priorities like SiteJet. Most of these have addons that can do the job. https://requests.whmcs.com/ideas

• Billing Term Change (12 years ago)
• Single monthly invoice (6 years ago)
• Dependent Configurable Options (11 years ago)
• Option to see the original mail from a support ticket (9 years ago)

Edited 5 hours ago by websavers