[MexicanJoe]

It's $6.67 per user. Just get a paid account. But no... people will spend hours or days switching to an alternative, and then they have to maintain it which will be even more time. I guess it ends up with: what is your time worth?

[bachmeier]

So if you have 15 users, pay $100/month? I suppose a senior engineer for Facebook wouldn't have a problem that. More seriously though

> what is your time worth?

What time are you talking about? If you're doing basic chat stuff on Zulip, and the free plan works, what exactly are you going to "maintain" that's worse than paying $1200 a year until you die - or until Slack decides decides they need revenue growth, so they bump up prices to $2000 a year.

[MexicanJoe]

I don't know of any other industry, where (I assume everyone here is connected to IT) IT people have such a hard time paying other IT people. Slack has to pay salary, servers, networks, devops, health insurance, rent, etc etc. And people just expect them to be able to send out a free service to everyone, and yet they are even keeping their free tier. They are just changing it a little.

The same would be true for Zulip. I assume their developers need to pay rent and provide for their families. But it's open source, you might argue. Okay, if you have contributed to the project you get 20 free accounts for life. The rest of us can pay a small fee every month, so their developers can pay rent and actually focus on making a better product for us.

[MexicanJoe]

If you are a company, then you have to move everyone over and they have to learn the new software, and Karen from accounting and others needs a lot of help switching and what the app on her phone. "The old one was much nicer", "I don't know Markdown". Now Karen hates the new system.

If you self-host then you have to pay for a server. That server needs updates and backups so that is even more time. A server on AWS can just disappear overnight, so you need to prepare for that.

And yet people still go to Starbucks and buy expensive coffee without thinking.

[jillesvangurp]

Anything self hosted you pay twice. You pay for the infrastructure and you pay for the time lost setting things up. Engineers are really bad at time estimates and they'll argue it's easy and not a big deal. And then they'll end up spending hours/days on it, which by their hourly wages means you are getting a much worse deal than a paid service. And even if you are saving some money, you are still losing time that you might have used more productively.

And if you cut corners and don't do a proper job of self hosting, you are going to pay a third time when it inevitably blows up and needs more time and attention to be fixed; all while your company has no access to whatever the thing was you were self hosting. I've seen Jira go down, self hosted gitlab servers running out of disk (without backups), irc servers go down, jenkins build servers blowing up, etc. Very disruptive when that happens. And preventable if you do a proper job. But that costs extra and you need competent people to be on this. People that could be doing more valuable things instead.

We use freemium accounts Github and Slack. So, we have Github Actions, issue tracking, chat, etc. without actually paying a single dollar. Github actually used to charge and the company I was CTO for at the time was happily paying for it (we upgraded from our self hosted Gitlab because I got tired of dealing with that). But then they removed the limitations on private repositories. So, these days, using Github and Slack for free is kind of a no-brainer for me. I'd consider paying for this stuff even but there simply is no need currently and the added value of the paid only features just isn't that high to me.

MS did what Slack should be doing. They realized that the value of being the number 1 choice for a commodity service is that you end up with an insanely valuable thing: every developer joins your service. They have Linus Torvalds hosting the Linux kernel on Github even. The percentile of developers without a Github account is ridiculously low. And their dominance as the number 1 choice in the corporate world is huge because of that. And there are plenty of ways to monetize being that large other than asking companies to pay per month per user. As soon as they'd force companies to pay, they'd inevitably open up the market to competitors and lose their dominant position. Gitlab is the obvious one. But it is merely the largest of a very long tail of alternatives. As long as MS keeps their pricing as it is, they get to keep their position.

Slack is dominating corporate chat in a way that MS never really achieved despite trying very hard with various products. However, chat is a commodity and Slack succeeded in on-boarding lots of companies and teams by giving it away for free. As soon as it stops being free, people will vote with their feet because there are plenty of other free/cheap options. They should prevent that at all cost and focus on finding better ways to convert some of their users to paid users. Shrinking their user base is counter productive for that.