I'd argue that seems grossly optimistic for most users. Considering that many useful tools are free and most people balk at paying $6.99 for an app.
How about a $0 starter tier for max. of x monitors, with a max freq. of every y hrs... then move up to a one-time fee that is more generous, but still constrained, and finally have a monthly fee that allows unlimited.
> How about a $0 starter tier for max. of x monitors, with a max freq. of every y hrs... then move up to a one-time fee that is more generous, but still constrained, and finally have a monthly fee that allows unlimited.
Yeah! That seems like a nice strategy. Do you think people will be ready to pay subscription for unlimited access?
The problem with a one-time-fee for a cloud service is that it's unsustainable. That's why I suggest OP have constraints on accounts unless paying a subscription fee. If you really find a 3rd party cloud service (requiring servers/networking/bandwidth) valuable, you should assist in its survival. The fee should be nominal (unless real support is included) but non-zero.
I agree, and that's why, although you maybe thought somewhat outrageous, if OP is going down the 1-time path, i'd rather pay a lot in hope that they can keep the cloud services running for years even if they decided to stop working on it. I like your formula approach.
What canada_dry said below. Especially for what seems to be a solo developer, I'd rather this was costed so as even if they decided to stop working on it, the margin per month was such that I could continue to use it for years. I feel like for a solo developer doing a 1 time fee, more likely to disappear after a couple of years
I'd argue that seems grossly optimistic for most users. Considering that many useful tools are free and most people balk at paying $6.99 for an app.
How about a $0 starter tier for max. of x monitors, with a max freq. of every y hrs... then move up to a one-time fee that is more generous, but still constrained, and finally have a monthly fee that allows unlimited.