3 ms·
If SaaS is cheaper, then that's the only argument we need. But it isn't clear that SaaS is cheaper. I run a small SaaS thing for which I charge $19/mo from a d
by fiatjaf 10y ago
If SaaS is cheaper, then that's the only argument we need. But it isn't clear that SaaS is cheaper.
I run a small SaaS thing for which I charge $19/mo from a dozen clients. Each one of these clients could run it for $7 on Heroku. Someone could easily write a "Deploy to Heroku" button in no time.
I also thought about the free plan Sentry.io offers. That, as you said, eliminates all the small projects need to host themselves, but (I'm guessing) it isn't something that all companies can afford: offering so generous free plans.
I want to open-source it, but I'm afraid I'll lose all my income.
- LewisJEllis 10y agoYou're either ignoring the cost of engineering time, or you're underestimating the engineering time your clients might spend running their own instance. With the numbers you give, running your service themselves would save them $150/yr. That's 2-3 engineer hours per year to keep it running, keep it updated, keep it secure, and troubleshoot if things go wrong. If they spend more than 2-3 hours per year, they spent more on the engineering time than they would have paying you. This is even ignoring questions like "can that $7 heroku box handle the same load as your $19 plan?" or "do your clients even know how to set up/manage Heroku?" Of course, people underestimate this effort/its potential complications, and overestimate their own abilities, so they often think this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but in reality it's usually not.