These are perfectly good arguments, I think somewhat undermined by the usage rather than feature based price segmentation. It ends up feeling artificially nickel-and-dimey, in a local-sync tool.
Yeah, pricing is really tough. I've experimented heavily with feature-based pricing, most notably in Heroku, and people absolutely hate it. When you put your best features behind a paid upgrade, you're preventing people from evaluating the most important part of the software.
Free trials are another solution, but time also ends up being a bit arbitrary.
In the end, storage is a good metric that doesn't require complex feature gates. We borrowed this model from Notion: they had 1000 blocks free in their original product, but once they started getting those sweet enterprise dollars they were able to give more away for free to individuals. Dropbox and GitHub are two other examples.
Our service still does a lot of work proportionate to data size, so in that sense it's still SaaS and has the same cost dynamics at work. But in the end the real cost of software is engineering salaries, not infrastructure, so that whole discussion is sort of a red herring.
Obviously it remains a problem to solve that our industry can't find a pricing model that is both (1) healthy and sustainable for the business and (2) people find amenable.
It's definitely tough and you're right, it's also easy to make feature-based segmentation infuriating. But (as you know and as this thread amply demonstrates) for pro-sumerish apps, it's as much (if not more) about vibes as it is about price. The 'we're simple software artisans asking an honest price for a quality product' vibe just clashes with the nickel-and-dime vibe of that pricing structure, that's all.
Yeah, truly an unsolved problem. Obsidian seems to have found a good path--free for the core product, $10/mo (standard price for prosumer apps) for sync.
But we felt like sync is a core feature and we really want to give it away for free so that people can experience it. Time will tell if that was a good call.
A core concept is the idea that creative professionals live a multi-device life. Desktop computer for focused productivity, tablet for relaxed reading and thinking, phone for capture and lookup on the go.
Free trials are another solution, but time also ends up being a bit arbitrary.
In the end, storage is a good metric that doesn't require complex feature gates. We borrowed this model from Notion: they had 1000 blocks free in their original product, but once they started getting those sweet enterprise dollars they were able to give more away for free to individuals. Dropbox and GitHub are two other examples.
Our service still does a lot of work proportionate to data size, so in that sense it's still SaaS and has the same cost dynamics at work. But in the end the real cost of software is engineering salaries, not infrastructure, so that whole discussion is sort of a red herring.
Obviously it remains a problem to solve that our industry can't find a pricing model that is both (1) healthy and sustainable for the business and (2) people find amenable.