3 ms·

Absolutely brilliant idea (ok it is an idea I have had myself, I am glad someone has done it) One thing that is not clear is the estimated costs - is that per

Absolutely brilliant idea (ok it is an idea I have had myself, I am glad someone has done it) One thing that is not clear is the estimated costs - is that per app, or do you charge for the server and I can run multiple apps? I think $10 a month for something to power 50 or so apps (maybe I don’t use them all the time, if I do I expect things to get slow or you allow say 2 concurrent apps) would be great. I think this sort of thing will encourage people to use foss instead of the big walled gardens. Maybe this is the real web3? My idea is a bit different: most web apps probably just need something like a firestore DB (Parse I guess would do?) so you charge for that and then apps are just a JS bundle format. Like android you have a store but also allow direct uploads at the users own risk.

m3nu 5y ago
It’s per pod/app you run and depends on the resources you allocate. Price for minimum required resources is given for each app and starts at $1/month. Yeah, the goal is to make running FOSS as easy as Google Photos, but with more privacy and community-maintained code. Also hoping to channel some funds back to authors, but that’s more complex than expected. Just getting started with it.
- indigodaddy 5y ago
  I think you should consider OP’s suggestion. Unlimited apps for some X flat rate. I believe this would bring in more users and potentially attract an audience who for instance was considering Cloudron but didn’t want the hassle of even managing/buying the VPS to install it on..
  - m3nu 5y ago
    I was considering this, but in a survey most respondents preferred a prepaid model to avoid surprise charges. The flatrate model does that too, though. Maybe worth trying in the future. Like Spotify for open source apps.
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      Something that could potentially be a big improvement (in actual efficiency, not just pricing) for low-traffic apps, would be to allow users to provision a set of resources that are shared between multiple apps.
    - arvigeus 5y ago
      I think combination of two would be the best. In this case I can have a beefy nextcloud pod, and then some shared pod that hosts multiple less demanding apps.

m3nu 5y ago

It’s per pod/app you run and depends on the resources you allocate. Price for minimum required resources is given for each app and starts at $1/month. Yeah, the goal is to make running FOSS as easy as Google Photos, but with more privacy and community-maintained code. Also hoping to channel some funds back to authors, but that’s more complex than expected. Just getting started with it.

indigodaddy 5y ago
I think you should consider OP’s suggestion. Unlimited apps for some X flat rate. I believe this would bring in more users and potentially attract an audience who for instance was considering Cloudron but didn’t want the hassle of even managing/buying the VPS to install it on..
- m3nu 5y ago
  I was considering this, but in a survey most respondents preferred a prepaid model to avoid surprise charges. The flatrate model does that too, though. Maybe worth trying in the future. Like Spotify for open source apps.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Something that could potentially be a big improvement (in actual efficiency, not just pricing) for low-traffic apps, would be to allow users to provision a set of resources that are shared between multiple apps.
  - arvigeus 5y ago
    I think combination of two would be the best. In this case I can have a beefy nextcloud pod, and then some shared pod that hosts multiple less demanding apps.