[themoonisachees]

They're positioning themselves as a competition to saas, which has a cost. Saying "it is free" is not exactly true either because costumers that are using SaaS typically have weak infrastructure, which means that one way or another they're going to have to spend money to use this.

I love FOSS, but the fact of the matter is that companies don't really care about FOSS. They care that the software they're using is working when they need it, and ultimately paying $49 a month is cheaper than owning or renting infrastructure AND paying someone to administer it in a way that works consistently, when they need it.

Saying "it is free" is true, but the man-hours you're now dedicating to hosting it, monitoring it, the network admin required, the time spent when it's not working, the single point of failure being moved from a datacenter to possibly an office building, the backup process, infratructure and administration, all of that costs money, and you get it all accounted for (and economies of scale cheaper) with SaaS. That is the single biggest reason SaaS is so popular with companies, with enough SaaS you can just rent an office and buy laptops, and only hire devs.