4 ms·
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 spar
by 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 agoI 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.