4 ms·

Went to use Vault for Enterprise and heard we got an invoice for half a million dollars. Went with another solution.

by stevecalifornia 8y ago

gigatexal 8y ago
Quality software and developers cost money.
- leetrout 8y ago
  That sounds very reasonable for what you get (assuming it's not node / core locked) and for a moderately sized org. I wish companies would publish their "whale sized" pricing. I know they're coming up with different pricing for different customers but it'd be great to be able to put a stake in the ground to make a judgement of utility. $40k / month with a warranty or SLA on patches is a lot cheaper than a team of "devops" maintaining it on their own (assuming it's core to the business ops).
  - gigatexal 8y ago
    Yeah. I totally agree. I understand why companies have a call us message on their enterprise pricing pages (don’t want to give your competitors an edge). But at the same time I just want the matrix of features are in the community edition and ones that aren’t. And then if we still want we will call and negotiate a good price. The guys at Cockroach Labs did just this but again their pricing is hidden behind an email to sales. That’s their prerogative but a bit annoying.
    - Already__Taken 8y ago
      You're talking in general I presume but if not it's further down https://www.hashicorp.com/products/vault/enterprise https://www.hashicorp.com/products/vault/enterprise
dev_dull 8y ago
I guess we ca that style “Medical bill” invoicing.
mitchellh 8y ago
Hey, I'm one of the founders of HashiCorp. We'd like to make more of Vault Enterprise available to smaller companies with lower palatable price points. This will be reflected in certain features omitted as well as a lower level of support. For now, please understand that our target _enterprise/commercial_ customer at the moment are Global 2000-esque companies. We currently have almost 10% of the global 2K as paying customers of Vault Enterprise. The features we've built along with the support you get reflect that (dedicated TAMs and so on). But we recognize that certain features of Vault Enterprise would be useful to smaller companies (replication and so forth). To that end, we're currently planning some new packaging/pricing aimed at this type of user. I have no timelines on when we'd publish that, but its something we're actively doing now. This should make Vault Enterprise more affordable by smaller companies (think 5-figures/year instead of 6-figures/year). Meanwhile, we're also making more "quality of life" features like auto-unseal available in Open Source. As we continue to add more features and value aimed directly at the Enterprise user, this lets us reevaluate and move more features into OSS and we have continued to do so throughout the life of Vault Enterprise. We hope this helps smaller companies adopt Vault successfully. And note that this is a great example of the model working: our success in Vault has funded growth in Vault staffing and that growth in Vault staffing has directly led to more OSS features and the growth in funding has led to our ability to more confidently make more features free. The community plays a huge role here, too. This is exactly how we intend for it to work! One thing we learned rather painfully is that selling to the 4-figure vs 5-figure vs 6-figure vs. 7-figure/year customer is each a _very_ different company-building exercise. The expectations of the 7-figure customer (and we have a number of those) is dedicated TAMs, dedicated support reps, quarterly in-person meetings about the state of the install, high impact on the roadmap, and much much more. That of course requires a certain kind of staffing. Very often this staffing scales "down" to lower price points but very rarely does the staffing at lower price points scale "up" to higher price points. As a company, we chose to go after the large enterprise deals first. This of course alienates some of the smaller deals since the large deals suck the air out of your org a bit. But as we've acquired more and more customers, grown, acquired more funding, etc. we're moving in that direction rapidly. So, hopefully we'll get there soon! I'm sorry that you were quoted at a point that didn't work for us mutually and I'm glad you find an alternate solution that worked for you. For others in a similar position: we're working on it!
ah- 8y ago
What was your motivation to go with Enterprise? It seems like most features are OSS now.

Went to use Vault for Enterprise and heard we got an invoice for half a million dollars. Went with another solution.

gigatexal 8y ago

Quality software and developers cost money.

leetrout 8y ago
That sounds very reasonable for what you get (assuming it's not node / core locked) and for a moderately sized org. I wish companies would publish their "whale sized" pricing. I know they're coming up with different pricing for different customers but it'd be great to be able to put a stake in the ground to make a judgement of utility. $40k / month with a warranty or SLA on patches is a lot cheaper than a team of "devops" maintaining it on their own (assuming it's core to the business ops).
- gigatexal 8y ago
  Yeah. I totally agree. I understand why companies have a call us message on their enterprise pricing pages (don’t want to give your competitors an edge). But at the same time I just want the matrix of features are in the community edition and ones that aren’t. And then if we still want we will call and negotiate a good price. The guys at Cockroach Labs did just this but again their pricing is hidden behind an email to sales. That’s their prerogative but a bit annoying.
  - Already__Taken 8y ago
    You're talking in general I presume but if not it's further down https://www.hashicorp.com/products/vault/enterprise https://www.hashicorp.com/products/vault/enterprise

dev_dull 8y ago

I guess we ca that style “Medical bill” invoicing.

mitchellh 8y ago

Hey, I'm one of the founders of HashiCorp. We'd like to make more of Vault Enterprise available to smaller companies with lower palatable price points. This will be reflected in certain features omitted as well as a lower level of support. For now, please understand that our target _enterprise/commercial_ customer at the moment are Global 2000-esque companies. We currently have almost 10% of the global 2K as paying customers of Vault Enterprise. The features we've built along with the support you get reflect that (dedicated TAMs and so on). But we recognize that certain features of Vault Enterprise would be useful to smaller companies (replication and so forth). To that end, we're currently planning some new packaging/pricing aimed at this type of user. I have no timelines on when we'd publish that, but its something we're actively doing now. This should make Vault Enterprise more affordable by smaller companies (think 5-figures/year instead of 6-figures/year). Meanwhile, we're also making more "quality of life" features like auto-unseal available in Open Source. As we continue to add more features and value aimed directly at the Enterprise user, this lets us reevaluate and move more features into OSS and we have continued to do so throughout the life of Vault Enterprise. We hope this helps smaller companies adopt Vault successfully. And note that this is a great example of the model working: our success in Vault has funded growth in Vault staffing and that growth in Vault staffing has directly led to more OSS features and the growth in funding has led to our ability to more confidently make more features free. The community plays a huge role here, too. This is exactly how we intend for it to work! One thing we learned rather painfully is that selling to the 4-figure vs 5-figure vs 6-figure vs. 7-figure/year customer is each a _very_ different company-building exercise. The expectations of the 7-figure customer (and we have a number of those) is dedicated TAMs, dedicated support reps, quarterly in-person meetings about the state of the install, high impact on the roadmap, and much much more. That of course requires a certain kind of staffing. Very often this staffing scales "down" to lower price points but very rarely does the staffing at lower price points scale "up" to higher price points. As a company, we chose to go after the large enterprise deals first. This of course alienates some of the smaller deals since the large deals suck the air out of your org a bit. But as we've acquired more and more customers, grown, acquired more funding, etc. we're moving in that direction rapidly. So, hopefully we'll get there soon! I'm sorry that you were quoted at a point that didn't work for us mutually and I'm glad you find an alternate solution that worked for you. For others in a similar position: we're working on it!

ah- 8y ago

What was your motivation to go with Enterprise? It seems like most features are OSS now.