[mbesto]

I tell you why: SSO means I'm going through a qualified purchasing route, which means getting finance/procurement and then subsequently IT involvement. SSO implies I'm using the product company wide, versus a group of 2~10 people in the marketing group. As others have mentioned, there is a very justifiable reason to have a relationship between sales and procurement/IT.

Unpopular opinion - you may like to call it an SSO tax, but I think it's perfectly reasonable from both sides. The reality is - if you're a 10 person startup and the "SSO tax" is annoying, then simply don't do the SSO version...you have 10 people in your company, you can get them all to use a password manager with MFA. If you're worried about security then fine, don't you think it's worth paying a little more?

If people's issue with the "SSO tax" is that the SaaS software provider is making incremental money for very little effort/investment, then I would love to explain how the economics of most SaaS tenancy models work with regards to infrastructure spend...

[Terretta]

Having been an infrastructure provider for 30 years, this answer is largely unjustifiable.

It's a bunch of handwaving to try to get price discrimination for a "how the Internet is supposed to work" standard everyone, even a single dev client of the SaaS, should be using.

And that the SaaS provider should be pushing so they don't have the liability of subscriber credential database protection ...

[mbesto]

> even a single dev client of the SaaS, should be using.

Having assessed 600+ software companies (many of which are 5-50 employees), I'd say about half of them use MFA consistently across their business. And it's not a budgetary issue, but more of a logistic/IT/prioritization one.

[kuschku]

It'd be 100% if SSO was commonly included.

[DandyDev]

10 person startup -> that is a strawman if I ever saw one. There are many 100 person scale ups that are pre-profit for who the hassle of managing separate accounts for X SaaS tools for 100+ people is justifiably too much to ask but who can also not justify paying literally 50x as much as the highest non Enterprise tier

[mbesto]

> literally 50x

This is literally not the case. The pricing is nowhere near 50x - in fact if you negotiate the rates are only marginally higher than the tier below it.

FWIW - the sentiment I get here is that the gripe isn't necessarily the pricing (you notice how no one has quoted specific increases?) but that they have to pick up the phone to talk to someone for what they believe to be such a small feature.

> There are many 100 person scale ups that are pre-profit for who the hassle of managing separate accounts for X SaaS tools for 100+ people

So you're telling me that a company is complaining that they have to pay extra money for features that reduce their administrative burden and limit their risk, thereby costing them less money? Explain that one to me...

> There are many 100 person scale ups that are pre-profit

Also, put yourself in the seat of the owner of a software provider, would you rather win the sales opportunities of 10,000s of businesses that aren't pre-profit or the hundreds of businesses that match your criteria? I know who I'd be marketing to...

[TeMPOraL]

Startups/scaleups can grow arbitrarily large pre-profit; that's not a feature, that's a bug.