4 ms·
> How about a $0 starter tier for max. of x monitors, with a max freq. of every y hrs... then move up to a one-time fee that is more generous, but still constra
by vicke4 5y ago
> How about a $0 starter tier for max. of x monitors, with a max freq. of every y hrs... then move up to a one-time fee that is more generous, but still constrained, and finally have a monthly fee that allows unlimited.
Yeah! That seems like a nice strategy. Do you think people will be ready to pay subscription for unlimited access?
- neom 5y agoI would MUCH prefer a subscription personally.
- KMnO4 5y agoI think you would be the exception. In fact, you may the only person I’ve ever heard express this preference.
- parsecs 5y agoI second this. Most people I know, including myself, would much rather have one time purchase.
- canada_dry 5y agoThe problem with a one-time-fee for a cloud service is that it's unsustainable. That's why I suggest OP have constraints on accounts unless paying a subscription fee. If you really find a 3rd party cloud service (requiring servers/networking/bandwidth) valuable, you should assist in its survival. The fee should be nominal (unless real support is included) but non-zero.
- neom 5y agoI agree, and that's why, although you maybe thought somewhat outrageous, if OP is going down the 1-time path, i'd rather pay a lot in hope that they can keep the cloud services running for years even if they decided to stop working on it. I like your formula approach.
- neom 5y agoWhat canada_dry said below. Especially for what seems to be a solo developer, I'd rather this was costed so as even if they decided to stop working on it, the margin per month was such that I could continue to use it for years. I feel like for a solo developer doing a 1 time fee, more likely to disappear after a couple of years