[evisdrenova]

Thanks for the feedback! We're still an early company and working through the right pricing - we have some customers who pay less than that and some who pay more. Goal is to get happy customers and being an early stage company we have flexibility on it (the flat pricing makes that much easier).

[danpalmer]

I always find pricing in terms of developer time saved to be a tough sell, because different companies have different opportunity costs, value the product differently, pay differently, and different engineers have different productivity. That's a lot of axes to reason about. Most tools boil down to this eventually, but some are obviously things you'd never build internally (for a given size of company), whereas some are incremental improvements over what you might already be doing. I think Nucleus is in the latter category for many which makes this harder.

Have you considered things like per-region, per-host, per-cluster, per-active developer etc?

[intelVISA]

It's a deliberately misleading metric overall imo as it frames the value prop on your developers rather than the product.

Plus, if the argument is to hold and we assume your 'bad' devs can't somehow reinvent K8s in a week and have to buy into this managed one -- surely they're going to waste an equal amount of hours learning and breaking it?

Lunacy!!

[evisdrenova]

We definitely have considered those axes to price against but so far haven't adopted them because we deploy nucleus into your account and its honestly felt a little strange to us to charge a company by region, host, cluster etc. when ultimately you're paying the infra bill.

Not to say that we won't change our packaging and pricing down the line (we certainly will) but for now we're trying to make it easy to adopt without having to think across so many pricing axes. But we've seen pricing questions a few times in this thread - so maybe it's worth evaluating sooner rather than later.