[jerven]

Graph, alone does not make a selling feature list. You need to bring more to the long term enterprise problem space. i.e. otherwise it is just one more specific database for one or two projects, with annoying sales and contract negotiations. And each time that contract comes up for renewal the project will be looked at and investigated for migration to a more common stack.

At the same time they seemed to have put out quite a bit of marketing to developers, but hard to see their pitching solutions for the "enterprise" problems. Comparing this to the RDF Graph players, whom seem more focussed on playing well with all the other parts of the existing infrastructure. e.g. Virtual graphs on SQL dbs etc. (Personal bias to RDF so take that into account).

In the end we will see if the 500$ million investment in market share will materialize as long term sound investment.

[busterarm]

They certainly want to be charging enterprise database pricing when they don't really have enterprise solutions.

The way they build and pitch their product is straight out of the 1990s Oracle playbook.

[john-mark]

This post is several years old, but it shows what their prices were back when neo4j enterprise was available commercial or AGPL.

As soon as end users learned they were getting the same software either way, guess what they picked?

(This is my blog post - iGov Inc is just me)

https://blog.igovsol.com/2018/01/10/Neo4j-Commercial-Prices....