Pricing needs to correlate to value or it is unsustainable. Do you ever pay extra when you get a seemingly disproportionate value for that subscription? If yo

Pricing needs to correlate to value or it is unsustainable. Do you ever pay extra when you get a seemingly disproportionate value for that subscription? If you got the a la carte pricing you are looking for it would likely be more valuable to the service provider as a sales mechanism. So, it would be priced just right to get you to convert to the subscription model. I'm not debating the merits of any of this, but trying to answer your question with given market realities. The previous comments about AWS are the price/value correlation in practice. AWS prices will go up, but right now, it is more valuable, in a strategic sense to grow market share. I switched from Rackspace to AWS because I received credits from AWS/Y Combinator Office Hours. It was a big hassle to switch, but I also received disproportionate value, and not just because they were credits, but because the AWS ecosystem is great. I am getting ready to launch my enterprise SaaS and pricing/value was a significant consideration. Not just to calculate how much I can earn, but to stimulate growth and prove useful to my customers - which is the key to eventually getting to the first two. At the center it has a marketplace and the pricing is based on the gross value of the transaction. All fees are paid by the suppliers. The service is otherwise free to use. So, I only collect fees when I help facilitate client business. The bottom-line is that this is how I can be of the greatest value to my clients. I think AWS, and my pricing follows a similar model, is the evolution of the basic subscription model, which in turn was an evolution of the standard enterprise license model, which collected fees upfront with each new release installed.