1. Ryan Hellyer

    This appears to be just a front for Akamai, Amazon, MaxCDN etc. so it’s probably best just to buy directly from them instead.

    Personally I use Amazon Cloudfront and am really happy with it. The cost is ridiculously low and my files always load mega fast :)


  2. Jeffro

    @Ryan Hellyer – Right. In their announcement post they clearly stated they bought it bulk and are passing on savings to consumers. I wonder if it would be cheaper to go direct. I’ve been happy with Photon in Jetpack but then again, I haven’t run any benchmarks that shows me it has made any difference. The site also uses Cloudflare.


  3. Jonathan Dingman

    We use MaxCDN (NetDNA) at WPForce.com, and at $40/year for 1tb of bandwidth, it’s tough to go wrong. I find it’s super speedy and the interface is one of the best I’ve seen for a CDN. Plus, the management team are very friendly and easy to approach.

    I’ve tested out Photon, but I found having an actual CDN, even if it costs a little bit, is worth it.


  4. Mark k.

    9$ a month sound expensive. I don’t think the savings they offer are worth the introduction of a middleman.


  5. Ryan Hellyer

    @Jeffro -If you have crazy high traffic or were serving massive images, videos etc. then you might be able to save money via the Page.ly deal. But for the rest of us, US$9 is more than we pay by buying directly.


  6. Pranjal

    CDNs are generally aimed for high-traffic sites not for mid-end or average sites. $9 is not expensive at all, if you’re getting a lot of traffic. Was not impressed with free Photon, I think WordPress should start a Premium version of Photon with a wide variety of features.


  7. Jeffro

    @Jonathan Dingman – Well, $40 per year is a heck of a lot cheaper than $108 bucks.

    @Mark k., @Ryan Hellyer – I have little experience in the realm of Content Distribution Networks and their pricing. I only remember how expensive they were about 2 years ago. I thought $9.00 a month was cheap but looking at other options and the comments here, it’s not.

    @Pranjal – I wonder if Automattic will at some point create their own premium CDN service or acquire one which would be another Platform Agnostic way of generating revenue. Makes sense to me.


  8. Ryan Hellyer

    @Jeffro -CDN’s are ridiculously cheap. You typically only pay for what you use, and since most people use almost nothing, they end up paying, well, almost nothing.

    I think my monthly bill is somewhere around US$3 – 4 from Amazon, but I serve quite a few large images, so a site with significantly less images should cost significantly less for the CDN hosting.


  9. Vid Luther

    On the surface this looks like a whitelabel selling of MetaCDN.com or something similar.

    There’s a lot of mis-information and hype around CDNs, that unfortunately even we’ve accidentally helped spread.

    CDNs will not always speed up your site. We’re working on making it possible to re-educate people, and more importantly, how to measure page load time properly.


  10. Jonathan Dingman

    @Vid Luther – That’s a good point to make, that there may be other bottlenecks such as long queries, misconfigured server-side caching, or using scaled-down images.

    In most cases though, I would say that a CDN typically does help speed up a website from a global perspective.

    It’s always a good idea to check the basics first though.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: