4 ms·

If it wasn't $50/month, they'd have made tons of money from me without using it. But I had it for a few months and simply canceled. You can't have a service for

If it wasn't $50/month, they'd have made tons of money from me without using it. But I had it for a few months and simply canceled. You can't have a service for $49 when a whole server is $5 nowadays and GitHub is $7/month. Plus, when you can do it with code like with this [0] too, why use a GUI/WUI? [0]: https://diagrams.mingrammer.com/ https://diagrams.mingrammer.com/

blackoil 6y ago
If they reduce price to $10/m they'll need 5x customers to reach same revenue, as there are some variable costs, to reach same profit they'll need even more customers. Most of these new customers wouldn't be power users so they'll have a diverse set of expectations / requirements from the software. Not sure about the no. $50 but it may be a conscious and valid choice.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > If they reduce price to $10/m they'll need 5x customers to reach same revenue This assertion could only start to make any sense if you believe that the law of supply and demand doesn't exist, and that economies of scale don't apply. Meanwhile, I am a paying customer of cloud providers eventhough I don't use them just because they are affordable. This service expects that people like me spend 600€/year when I can have the same exact service somewhere else for 60€/year.
  - Closi 6y ago
    Well the assertion is just a mathematical fact, there is a disagreement on the demand curve. Maybe the company isn’t targeting anyone who is a paying customer of cloud providers, and is targeting full time cloud architects who need more than the other products offerings.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > Well the assertion is just a mathematical fact, It really isn't. You're somehow assuming that the law of supply and demand doesn't exist. As the premise is blatantly wrong then this mistake renders all subsequent assertions mute. > Maybe the company isn’t targeting anyone Irrelevant. The initial assertion was that higher prices somehow had no inpact in demand and thus revenue would be proportional. This assertion is blatantly wrong. The fact is that lower prices increase demand, and increased demand enables economies of scale, which lead to higher revenue. Conversely, higher prices lower demand, etc etc. Market segmentation is tangential to this point.
      - Closi 6y ago
        > It really isn't. The assertion was "$10/m they'll need 5x customers to reach same revenue" Revenue = Price * Quantity Sold. Let x = Quantity Sold, and y = revenue $50 * x = y $10 = $50/5 $50/5 * x = y/5 $10 * 5x = y OP stated a fact, and you said it was incorrect. I'm just trying to say the disagreement is actually about how elastic the price is (i.e. a change of x% in price results in a y% change in the number of customers).
sabalaba 6y ago
Trust me, they don't care that you're gone. If you aren't willing to pay $50 / month, you're not their target customer.
- rumanator 6y ago
  What a weird comment. I mean, it adds nothing to the discussion and intentionally sidesteps the core of any service: it's business model. If you refuse to even discuss the pricing model of a service, why bother wasting your time posting anything at all?
  - jarym 6y ago
    I think it adds a fair bit to the discussion. The business model must be aimed at larger cloud users who’s savings will outweigh $50/mo
    - rumanator 6y ago
      Those cloud users can have the same benefit by spending a fraction of the price. That's the point. The question you're trying to ask is whether the added value being promised justifies a price tag that's 10x higher than the ones offered by established services.
- devonkim 6y ago
  The long tail of AWS customers is pretty rocky and is a revenue risk as well. Why deal with folks that can come and go so quickly when stable, sustainable revenue is what matters more for a growing company? Most AWS consultants and devopsy / SRE types IME are hired around the lower to mid 5 figure monthly spend mark depending upon growth to warrant their cost and at that point $50 / mo is hardly even mentioned. Heck, even hiring a consultant instead of hiring engineers with experience in the first place is a bit of an old school thing and implies legacy or not a start-up kind of businesses (lift and shifts, that is).

blackoil 6y ago

If they reduce price to $10/m they'll need 5x customers to reach same revenue, as there are some variable costs, to reach same profit they'll need even more customers. Most of these new customers wouldn't be power users so they'll have a diverse set of expectations / requirements from the software. Not sure about the no. $50 but it may be a conscious and valid choice.

rumanator 6y ago
> If they reduce price to $10/m they'll need 5x customers to reach same revenue This assertion could only start to make any sense if you believe that the law of supply and demand doesn't exist, and that economies of scale don't apply. Meanwhile, I am a paying customer of cloud providers eventhough I don't use them just because they are affordable. This service expects that people like me spend 600€/year when I can have the same exact service somewhere else for 60€/year.
- Closi 6y ago
  Well the assertion is just a mathematical fact, there is a disagreement on the demand curve. Maybe the company isn’t targeting anyone who is a paying customer of cloud providers, and is targeting full time cloud architects who need more than the other products offerings.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > Well the assertion is just a mathematical fact, It really isn't. You're somehow assuming that the law of supply and demand doesn't exist. As the premise is blatantly wrong then this mistake renders all subsequent assertions mute. > Maybe the company isn’t targeting anyone Irrelevant. The initial assertion was that higher prices somehow had no inpact in demand and thus revenue would be proportional. This assertion is blatantly wrong. The fact is that lower prices increase demand, and increased demand enables economies of scale, which lead to higher revenue. Conversely, higher prices lower demand, etc etc. Market segmentation is tangential to this point.
    - Closi 6y ago
      > It really isn't. The assertion was "$10/m they'll need 5x customers to reach same revenue" Revenue = Price * Quantity Sold. Let x = Quantity Sold, and y = revenue $50 * x = y $10 = $50/5 $50/5 * x = y/5 $10 * 5x = y OP stated a fact, and you said it was incorrect. I'm just trying to say the disagreement is actually about how elastic the price is (i.e. a change of x% in price results in a y% change in the number of customers).

sabalaba 6y ago

Trust me, they don't care that you're gone. If you aren't willing to pay $50 / month, you're not their target customer.

rumanator 6y ago
What a weird comment. I mean, it adds nothing to the discussion and intentionally sidesteps the core of any service: it's business model. If you refuse to even discuss the pricing model of a service, why bother wasting your time posting anything at all?
- jarym 6y ago
  I think it adds a fair bit to the discussion. The business model must be aimed at larger cloud users who’s savings will outweigh $50/mo
  - rumanator 6y ago
    Those cloud users can have the same benefit by spending a fraction of the price. That's the point. The question you're trying to ask is whether the added value being promised justifies a price tag that's 10x higher than the ones offered by established services.
devonkim 6y ago
The long tail of AWS customers is pretty rocky and is a revenue risk as well. Why deal with folks that can come and go so quickly when stable, sustainable revenue is what matters more for a growing company? Most AWS consultants and devopsy / SRE types IME are hired around the lower to mid 5 figure monthly spend mark depending upon growth to warrant their cost and at that point $50 / mo is hardly even mentioned. Heck, even hiring a consultant instead of hiring engineers with experience in the first place is a bit of an old school thing and implies legacy or not a start-up kind of businesses (lift and shifts, that is).