> The opposite of burden is convenience, and that's fine to be charged for, in my book. If we zoom out a bit more, the entire product is about convenience. The

> The opposite of burden is convenience, and that's fine to be charged for, in my book. If we zoom out a bit more, the entire product is about convenience. The customer pays for the product because they have a problem/burden that justifies the purchase of a product. But customers usually buy a product for the things that are unique about it. SSO is not one of those things and is trending towards commoditization. The fact that it affords additional convenience doesn't necessarily mean customers are willing to pay for that. SCIM is a bit more interesting, because it provides an abstraction layer over the things that are unique about a product. SCIM is also probably overkill for products with sufficiently simple offboarding needs. > You might be making an argument for SSO _and_ SCIM to be part of base subscription for enterprise software, and I wonder where does the line get drawn for what's tables takes SCIM hasn't reached the level of adoption (and customer expectation) that traditional forms of SSO have, and as a result I don't think it's in the table stakes conversation at this point. I think this will change over time if SCIM sees widespread adoption. From a customer perspective, a product without SSO can be a non-starter. A product without SCIM just means some additional integration/automation will be needed, or at worst, a manual process will be implemented around offboarding. > Then there's a good chance we've worked together :) This particular world is definitely a small one, so maybe! ;)