Hacker News Reader

Comment by advisedwang | Hacker News Reader

> If Customer purchases additional capacity ... unconsumed Capacity will roll over ... Otherwise, purchased Capacity expires

What is vague about that?

View on HN

It is the min. additional required, given they calculate capacity usage into very small units (like one of our statements was for $0.20 which is also how they position themselves), I was under the impression from the rep they could re-paper with a token amount(basically roll over without any new significant purchase, for a 10k contract, 1k is to me significant). I of course should have pushed what the new contract min might be so that is on me. But as I mentioned in my reply elsewhere details that their min. purchase policies changes and apply to different people differently, which is their prerogative, but I'm just recommending people not to trust what their sales rep portrays and if you are small, just stay on demand because they may have some huge new min. purchase requirement that is not in your contract.

Your right it's not vague. It's pretty clear.

Add the fact that the contract was just 1 page, it seems they signed without reading. Basing their decision only on the words of the smooth talking sales rep.

They would have had my sympathy if the clause was buried within many pages of legalese.

But 1 page? Come on.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was saying it's vague what there would be a new purchase min of $1k (now according to the rep it is their internal policy is whatever level you were contracted at is the new min.). Since capacity for Snowflake is sold in very small tranches(we at one time got a bill for less than a dollar for the month during our on-demand time), I assumed the new contract could be issued with very small, essentially token amounts, this point is where the rep more or less waved his hands on and I agree I should have not trusted his portrayal. Honestly he may be working with the constrains of changing policies imposed on him too, so I def take responsibility here. Just as I mentioned, the post is for people who may be looking at similar clauses and coming to the wrong assumption that I did to not repeat the same mistake.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com