3 ms·
I think what people despise most about it is that SSO is sold as an enterprise feature. That would be ok if it was sold separately. But often SSO comes bundled
by AtNightWeCode 4y ago
I think what people despise most about it is that SSO is sold as an enterprise feature. That would be ok if it was sold separately. But often SSO comes bundled with a lot of overpriced garbage in some enterprise agreement. Github is a prime example of this.
- mbesto 4y ago> But often SSO comes bundled with a lot of overpriced garbage in some enterprise agreement. Fair. But wouldn't the opposite also hold true? The purchasers who say "what..I got pay $10/user/month extra for JUST SSO?"
- AtNightWeCode 4y agoAn SSO provider costs a couple of dollars. To integrate one is less than 100 lines of code. That is not 10$.
- mbesto 4y agoYou're looking at that from a cost perspective. Pricing should be based on value. > To integrate one is less than 100 lines of code. Ugh not this again...
- AtNightWeCode 4y agoThis pretty much only works in the US. In the rest of the world companies expect to get a fair price. Hence the term, American prizes.
- mbesto 4y agoExplain to me exactly what a "fair price" is? Value is simple. Let's use a simple example: AcmeCo makes a widget and sells it for $50 WorldCo buys widget for $50 and uses it create $75 worth of services, thereby profiting $25. AcmeCo has an opportunity to make up to charge up to $74.99 if they want, because WorldCo still profits. That, in its simplest terms, is what pricing on. value means. Europe, Asia, or otherwise don't magically say "well that's not fair, you don't deserve higher profits". That's silly, so stop pretending thats the case outside of the US.
- AtNightWeCode 4y agoMore like. AcmeCo makes a widget nobody wants. WorldCo wants to buy a single needed core feature. WorldCo then must pay for the widget too.