3 ms·
Making it per-base rather than per-user is odd. Suppose I'm thinking of using airtable to build something shared between all our staff. If I have 10 staff on t
by mjw1007 6y ago
Making it per-base rather than per-user is odd.
Suppose I'm thinking of using airtable to build something shared between all our staff. If I have 10 staff on the pro tier they can add 5000 items each.
But if I pay ten times as much for 100 staff they can only add 500 items each.
My guess is that it's more of a technical limit, and they had difficulty making it perform well for larger bases.
- abtinf 6y agoRecords-per-staff is certainly an issue, but in fact the problem is much more severe. A great deal of the value of the Airtable comes from having multiple sheets in a single base. Put another way, the value comes from the ability to maintain relationships of data. So those 10 or 100 staff aren't just entering individual items. They are, say, adding project information--ideas, bugs, tasks, managing the next sprint. Every additional bit of information you add to Airtable compounds the problem. Airtable is the only data management tool I've ever seen that punishes users for storing more data.