[corywatilo]

IIRC they had recently added a user cap on self-serve customers which was new and led to this. The new pricing deck they sent was "It will be $3,500/mo, but until the end of the month, you can get it for only $2,500!" (Pricing approx.)

$2,500/mo to host a static site is ludicrous.

[maccard]

> $2,500/mo to host a static site is ludicrous.

But it's not to host a static site, it's one click CD, multiple environments, global CDN, and a few more things. I'm not going to say how mu h it is worth, but if you just want a static site with a domain you can do it for free/sub $10 on many many providers.

[afavour]

Sounds like the OP didn't ask for or want those things. I think it's reasonable to be annoyed that a cheap tier that provides exactly what you want and nothing more has been taken away.

[CharlesW]

> But it's not to host a static site, it's one click CD, multiple environments, global CDN, and a few more things.

What can you do for $2,500 on Netlify you can't do on Vercel for $20/user/month?

[sebmellen]

SSO is probably the only thing. Other than that, no idea. Netlify pulled the same stunt with us and we left. They must have burned many bridges by now.

[maccard]

That's not a fair comparison. Looki at Netlify[0] and Vercel's [1] pricing sites, the per-user pricing for the "pro" tiers is the same and Vercel gates the features that are in the Netlify "business" tier behind an enterprise contact-us paywall.

I suspect that if you're using these "as expected", your bill on both sites would be the same.

[0] https://www.netlify.com/pricing/ [1] https://vercel.com/pricing

[whatshisface]

I don't get it, why can't these companies just limit the number of people with credentials for the seat-licensed website?