[habith]

I just looked at the pricing page on Gitlab.com and was genuinely interested in trying it out. But the pricing language and structure on the page turned me off instantly.

I thought to myself: "$3.25 per user per month? Sweet! I can throw $6.5 to try it out without the hassle of setting up yet another VM. Charged yearly? Eh, seems to be a bit of a commitment. Oh wait, in multiples of 10? that's $390 upfront with 8 extra licenses for a year!"

Compare that to Digital Ocean's pricing page: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/

They list the monthly price first but they actually bill hourly. It seems more honest and upfront to tell me what I'm in for.

I understand that you're competitive compared to Github enterprise, but I think that page needs some work to make it more trustworthy and less salesman-pitch-y. Even Github lists that they start from $2500 upfront, not $3.25 + read the fine print.

Best of luck to you and congratulations on the funding.

Edit: And I just noticed that's actually for the on-site EE and that Gitlab.com is free. Oy vey.

[sytse]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. We had yearly prices before but most people expect a price per month (our prices are pretty low so many people assumed our yearly price was our monthly one). I agree that now it is hard to make out the minimum order size, you need to do x10x12. Would it be an improvement if we add '$390 per user pack' to the list of items below the price to save you this calculation? BTW If you want to try it out we do have a money back guaranty.

[habith]

Thanks for your reply. Price x12 like you said is standard, it's the x10x12 that caught me off guard.

I think some language and price listing adjustments like you suggested would be a great improvement. Even if it's as simple as $32.5 per user pack per month (charged yearly).

[sytse]

I don't think pricing per user pack is what people expect, per user seems to be the more common question.

[habith]

But you _charge_ per user pack, do you not? Can we purchase 17 licenses? How about 23?

We have around 20 Backblaze licenses that we pay a bit over $1000 per year for. It makes sense for them to advertise the price per user because they charge us that way.

This is akin to Pepsi sticking a huge sign over their 24 pack at the department store saying "NOW ONLY 99 CENTS PER CAN!" minimum 24, in increments of 24.

Anyway, like I said, the way the pricing is advertised turned an interested/potential customer away.

[sytse]

I've put the user pack price at the text below the pricing so it is clear from the start https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/7e6b6f87...

[merb]

it would be great if you would change it to something like "monthly subscription" "per user pricing". Which means I could start with 2 users, add 10 and pay for them and maybe then I will kick two in the next month and will pay for 10. Paying on demand is something that I think would be really really good. AWS style.

[sytse]

I understand that need but having smaller tiers that 10 people is inefficient on our side and we would need to raise the price.

[toomuchtodo]

Your current pricing model is fine. If someone needs GitLab, they'll pay for it. If they don't pay for it, they don't need it. $30-60/year is cheap, even for a hobbyist project.

[mikekchar]

I think you may have validated what the OP was saying :-) It's $3.25 per user per month, but the minimum order is 10 users. So the minimum price is $390 per year.

[toomuchtodo]

Looks like my math was off. Still agree with Gitlab. Focus on business customers, not hobbyists.