[iFelix]

Tbh we haven't been focused on monetization at all. We've just put a high number to avoid disappointing people afterwards by raising pricing (I hate when company advertise something as cheap, then lock you in and raise prices). But we don't enforce any pricing as of today, you can use the cloud version for free without any limitation.

The actual pricing will likely be significantly lower. Initially we thought of introducing a pricing system that's more aligned with the value created (with a generous credit system, based on number of actions taken), because we found that Salesforce charges by seat but in large orgs most of the seat companies pay for are unused, so the incentives aren't aligned. I'm not sure we'll go this way because people also want a simple and predictable pricing they can understand.

[mirzap]

Contacts are a core feature. You can not expect to succeed as an open-source company by limiting the number of contacts at any point of maturity. Provide a decent number of features, and then charge for SSO and stuff like that.

Or put everything free and have your own dedicated service, with your infra and support. Look at Sentry. Everything is open source. They are making a lot of money. Not everybody wants to run Sentry on their own infra. Same with CRM.

[antaviana]

Be careful, that’s going to confuse a lot your buyers, especially at large corporations. Unless you are focusing in very tiny shops where who decides is the main or only user, your customers will be more concerned with cost predictability than with fairness. They just want to know what the cost will be with no surprises as to earmark the budget without having to revisit it later.

[iFelix]

Yes I agree, we might have to pick our battles and follow the industry norm on this one.