4 ms·

Postmark has the most interesting credit IMO, even if it's not a particularly huge one: > Postmark - If you’ve launched your product, are charging for it, and

Postmark has the most interesting credit IMO, even if it's not a particularly huge one: > Postmark - If you’ve launched your product, are charging for it, and haven’t taken outside investment, contact the Postmark support team and they'll give you $75 account credit to help with your email costs. A lot of these discounts are based on the assumption that you're a VC-backed, or about-to-be-VC-backed startup, that will have enough runway and growth to stick around for a couple years, and will smoothly transition from a steep discount to a 4-digit monthly bill around the time you land your Series A or whatever. I like Postmark's because it's much more reasonable - "you _don't_ have VC money, but you have an obvious path to making money (and thus being able to pay us), so we'll give you some credit for free as you get up and running." I've been totally freeloading for a side project of mine that I _don't_ expect to make any money, but in researching cheap plans I came across a lot of these sorts of discounts (usually while looking to see if they had an open source discount, since my side project is open source). It's an interesting gamble, but I respect Postmark's the most, I think.

danpalmer 8y ago
I also like how it's credit rather than a time-limited plan. Some projects might not take off in 3-months? 12? Especially if it's 1 person working in their spare time, having a bunch of trials running out is pressure you don't need. Credit on the other hand runs out when you actually use it, so is much more likely to coincide with you being ready to pay for the service.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  I agree - I would much rather a startup subsidy being based on a measurable metric rather than a time limit. e.g. A marketing mailing app being based on number of emails being sent, or a hosting provider basing it on the CPU units. That way, a startup won't get penalised for putting an MVP out there to get kick started, and the overall infrastructure costs to the provider isn't that high. I think it is also fairer in situations where one startup may skyrocket to profitability in 3 months as opposed to another that takes 3 years to start paying the bills. I think AWS is sort of on the right track with their free tier pricing, and it would be nice to see others adopt the same strategy. (Though I think AWS fails in their startup credits rationale - as far as I can see, they only offer that to funded startups.)
- shimms 8y ago
  > Credit on the other hand runs out when you actually use it, so is much more likely to coincide with you being ready to pay for the service. Most have an expiry on them. A credit is (typically) a liability on the balance sheet, so companies can't have unlimited exposure weighing down their book value. If credits expire after a certain amount of time, or are time limited in their offer, such as discounts for 12 months, there isn't the same exposure to potentially unlimited liabilities in non-expiring credits.
elkos 8y ago
I would really appreciate a similar list for open-source projects
- sah2ed 8y ago
  https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade-stand/#grants https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade-stand/#grants Not exactly what you asked for, but should get you started down that path if you desire funding for your open source project.

danpalmer 8y ago

I also like how it's credit rather than a time-limited plan. Some projects might not take off in 3-months? 12? Especially if it's 1 person working in their spare time, having a bunch of trials running out is pressure you don't need. Credit on the other hand runs out when you actually use it, so is much more likely to coincide with you being ready to pay for the service.

cyberferret 8y ago
I agree - I would much rather a startup subsidy being based on a measurable metric rather than a time limit. e.g. A marketing mailing app being based on number of emails being sent, or a hosting provider basing it on the CPU units. That way, a startup won't get penalised for putting an MVP out there to get kick started, and the overall infrastructure costs to the provider isn't that high. I think it is also fairer in situations where one startup may skyrocket to profitability in 3 months as opposed to another that takes 3 years to start paying the bills. I think AWS is sort of on the right track with their free tier pricing, and it would be nice to see others adopt the same strategy. (Though I think AWS fails in their startup credits rationale - as far as I can see, they only offer that to funded startups.)
shimms 8y ago
> Credit on the other hand runs out when you actually use it, so is much more likely to coincide with you being ready to pay for the service. Most have an expiry on them. A credit is (typically) a liability on the balance sheet, so companies can't have unlimited exposure weighing down their book value. If credits expire after a certain amount of time, or are time limited in their offer, such as discounts for 12 months, there isn't the same exposure to potentially unlimited liabilities in non-expiring credits.

elkos 8y ago

I would really appreciate a similar list for open-source projects

sah2ed 8y ago
https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade-stand/#grants https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade-stand/#grants Not exactly what you asked for, but should get you started down that path if you desire funding for your open source project.