by gigapotential on 6/28/23, 6:43 PM with 139 comments
by ApolloFortyNine on 6/28/23, 7:32 PM
Honestly I feel vpns are just kind of like gym memberships, it's not expected for everyone who gets one to use it every day, even though they could.
by AnotherGoodName on 6/28/23, 8:07 PM
My home country has TV networks that refuse to work on any of the known VPN providers. They've actually gone to the trouble of IP blocking known exits and the VPNs don't seem to change that often enough.
I know enough to buy a lowendbox and set it up as a VPN and use that and it works (provided the host is oddball enough not to be a known datacenter based IP). But i wonder if the above would work better than the more regular VPN providers.
by lxgr on 6/28/23, 7:36 PM
You keep using that word...
by caust1c on 6/28/23, 9:30 PM
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36064305
My take is it's either a very quick copy, or the feds. Perhaps both.
by r_lee on 6/28/23, 7:53 PM
So in total: $10 + about $12 + $1.5 (30x connections per day) = $23.5 per month
Mullvad is $5.
Using the big 3 for a VPN is suicide. You do not want to host a business based on bandwidth on those.
A cool tech demo but definitely not viable as a business.
Also, why a California LLC?
by hackan on 6/28/23, 7:37 PM
If they used some sort of disposable or "trustable" DNS server, it would be awesome!
by beardog on 6/28/23, 7:45 PM
Do you still share an IP address with the other users? One of the main ways a VPN grants privacy is because everyone shares a handful of IPs. There is still demand for dedicated IPs though, because they trigger blocking less.
I have a need for a good "residential"/"mobile" proxy/VPN service, but I have yet to see a company that I was confident that they were ethically sourcing the servers.
by shortcake27 on 6/28/23, 9:34 PM
by danpalmer on 6/28/23, 8:42 PM
Perhaps you could present some common use-cases with example prices?
If you're avoiding doing that because it should show the pricing to be too high, then perhaps that's something that needs to be worked on. In general pay-as-you-go pricing should be lower for the same outcome than the all-you-can-eat version of the same thing, because you should be able to not pay for the downtime.
by cpursley on 6/28/23, 10:15 PM
by rvwaveren on 6/28/23, 9:06 PM
by dns_snek on 6/28/23, 10:40 PM
1. Someone who uses VPN very infrequently, likely a couple of times per year while using less than 500GB of traffic, and
2. Someone who doesn't use a VPN to bypass georestrictions, excluding most travelers, and
3. Someone who doesn't mind being classified as a bot
That must be an extremely tiny group of people, right?
Pricing is outrageous for daily VPN users, while your use of datacenter IPs means it's going to be almost useless for evading georestrictions.
Besides, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the concept of a "serverless VPNs". If you're actually spinning up a VPS for each customer then that seems like a very wasteful use of resources for no reason.
by boomskats on 6/28/23, 8:35 PM
by cpursley on 6/28/23, 9:59 PM
Very slow and actually quite expensive. However, works well with Wireguard app on iOS!
by heipei on 6/28/23, 8:42 PM
by KomoD on 6/28/23, 8:51 PM
I'd rather just use Mullvad for €5/mo.
12 hours of average usage for me would cost $4
Also: you say "when you end your VPN session, we promptly delete the record from our database that links your session to the specific cloud server", does it also get deleted from the database backups? (assuming you do any)
by vpnuser on 6/29/23, 12:47 PM
by huhtenberg on 6/28/23, 10:11 PM
In other words, the pitch is suspiciously light on details that actually matter to back their "serverless" claim. The only technical way to parse "serverless" is that their exit nodes are spread over end-user devices. So how did they end up there?
by jandrese on 6/28/23, 8:11 PM
by nojvek on 6/29/23, 5:14 PM
by chrisallick on 6/28/23, 9:16 PM
by vbezhenar on 6/28/23, 7:51 PM
by stainablesteel on 6/28/23, 8:52 PM
by hank_z on 6/28/23, 11:21 PM
by lost_tourist on 6/28/23, 9:43 PM
by jrhizor on 6/28/23, 8:43 PM