5 ms·

What’s more important, bad press or paying users? Sure, not everyone will pay and some users will leave but those that stay might make up for it. My point is t

by thih9 4y ago

What’s more important, bad press or paying users? Sure, not everyone will pay and some users will leave but those that stay might make up for it. My point is that launching with a free tier and applying limits later has been an effective monetization strategy for many successful startups. Gitlab might be a special case because of open source projects; providing a service and then asking for money from people that in many cases work for free does feel a bit pointless.

Jensson 4y ago
If you make decisions that leads to you making money but causes problems for users then you will get bad press, simple as that. People would rather not use a free service at all instead of migrating and later be forced to migrate to another service again because it got too expensive, so any such strategy is user hostile. It is more user friendly to be upfront with what users needs to pay, of course the initial free is good for growth but still it is user hostile growth.
- blowski 4y ago
  Startups grow by giving users unlimited free access, only to start charging for that access once they've grown big enough. Such users should expect companies to revoke the free access. Such companies should expect bad press for doing so.
  - pdntspa 4y ago
    > Startups grow by giving users unlimited free access, only to start charging for that access once they've grown big enough. Yet another example of how we've normalized dishonesty and deception.
    - thih9 4y ago
      What do you suggest instead? Should companies that offer a free plan have legal obligation to continue the service for at least three years? Also, how is that deception? Most startups never claim that their plans will be forever free and unlimited. How I see it, free comes with risks. If you want less risk, choose a paid service. (Obviously the situation is different for open source projects that don’t have money and that are already run by volunteers.)
      - pdntspa 4y ago
        It's the drug-dealer sales model. "First hit's free, dude!" Which is bullshit. Either you offer a generous free tier in perpetuity and get all the nice things that come with that, or you don't, and build goodwill some other way.
        thih9 4y ago
        Are companies obliged to offer goodwill for free?
        pdntspa 4y ago
        You know, I think they should, now that you mention it. This idea that time is money, that everything a company offers should be compensated, is bullshit. The tech industry -- especially startups -- got to where they are today all the goodwill of nerds and early-adopters, and they would constantly ply them with free stuff so that it would plant seeds in their minds that would later blossom to convince the decisionmakers to buy their product. But it also had the effect of empowering entire generations of future tech workers, by giving them hands-on experience that later translates to useful employees and loyal customers. Microsoft is said to have a similar idea by not cracking down on Windows piracy too hard ... better they're running a pirated copy of Windows than Linux or Mac! So yes, companies should give their stuff away for free. There is too much focus on dollars and money with how they operate, it's like we forget that they are made of people and that they SERVE other people (their customers). Everything having its price is an extrene sense of entitlement on behalf of management
        thih9 4y ago
        I appreciate the detailed reply. Offering free hands-on experience seems like a version of “work for exposure”; even if it can be effective at times for a given company, I’d say on a larger scale it makes the market less healthy. E.g. it might give unfair advantage to larger companies that can afford to offer free services; smaller businesses might have more trouble with growth and getting recognised.
- thih9 4y ago
  Sure it’s user hostile; but at this point it’s a “newsletter popup” level of user hostile; most businesses are doing it and you can reasonably stop assuming that you’ll be able to consume for free without distractions. (Again, I’m not talking about targeting an audience where open source projects are the majority, but about a more general scenario.)
john_cogs 4y ago
GitLab team member here. Through the GitLab for Open Source program, open source projects can receive Ultimate features for free. You can learn more about the program here: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/ https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- samatman 4y ago
  I do assume you made this comment in good faith, but it's misleading: this offer is for nonprofits, constituted or otherwise, and not merely for open source projects. It's important for your company's messaging that you be accurate here. I'll also take the opportunity to express my disappointment that GitLab has decided that Microsoft's offering should be the home of any open-source project of significance; I think that's bad strategy. But it's not my call.
  - john_cogs 4y ago
    Thanks for the feedback. You are correct that in order for projects to be eligible they must not be seeking profit. This is listed as a requirement on the program page: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/ https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/. You can see many of the open source projects of significance who are part of the program here: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/partners/ https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/partners/
    - thih9 4y ago
      Your second link lists Gitlab Open Source Partners, which is not the same as Gitlab Open Source Program > While most partners are also members of the GitLab for Open Source Program, not all are (as some partners are commercial open source entities and therefore ineligible for the program). Source: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relations/opensource-program/ https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati...
RobotToaster 4y ago
"My point is that launching with a free tier and applying limits later has been an effective monetization strategy for many successful startups." That's usually called bait and switch.
- the_snooze 4y ago
  It's not just limited to free services. Netflix is pulling the same stunt by imposing "added household" fees on top of existing concurrent streaming limits.
  - doodlesdev 4y ago
    And they are destroying their business in the process. Trust is hard to earn, but really easy to lose. 1: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX/ 2: https://time.com/6198354/netflix-subscribers-loss-second-quarter-future/ https://time.com/6198354/netflix-subscribers-loss-second-qua... (If you have JavaScript disabled remove position: fixed from the body to read, or https://archive.ph/tGzqK https://archive.ph/tGzqK) 3: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62226912 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62226912

by thih9 4y ago

Jensson 4y ago

If you make decisions that leads to you making money but causes problems for users then you will get bad press, simple as that. People would rather not use a free service at all instead of migrating and later be forced to migrate to another service again because it got too expensive, so any such strategy is user hostile. It is more user friendly to be upfront with what users needs to pay, of course the initial free is good for growth but still it is user hostile growth.

blowski 4y ago
Startups grow by giving users unlimited free access, only to start charging for that access once they've grown big enough. Such users should expect companies to revoke the free access. Such companies should expect bad press for doing so.
- pdntspa 4y ago
  > Startups grow by giving users unlimited free access, only to start charging for that access once they've grown big enough. Yet another example of how we've normalized dishonesty and deception.
  - thih9 4y ago
    What do you suggest instead? Should companies that offer a free plan have legal obligation to continue the service for at least three years? Also, how is that deception? Most startups never claim that their plans will be forever free and unlimited. How I see it, free comes with risks. If you want less risk, choose a paid service. (Obviously the situation is different for open source projects that don’t have money and that are already run by volunteers.)
    - pdntspa 4y ago
      It's the drug-dealer sales model. "First hit's free, dude!" Which is bullshit. Either you offer a generous free tier in perpetuity and get all the nice things that come with that, or you don't, and build goodwill some other way.
      - thih9 4y ago
        Are companies obliged to offer goodwill for free?
        pdntspa 4y ago
        You know, I think they should, now that you mention it. This idea that time is money, that everything a company offers should be compensated, is bullshit. The tech industry -- especially startups -- got to where they are today all the goodwill of nerds and early-adopters, and they would constantly ply them with free stuff so that it would plant seeds in their minds that would later blossom to convince the decisionmakers to buy their product. But it also had the effect of empowering entire generations of future tech workers, by giving them hands-on experience that later translates to useful employees and loyal customers. Microsoft is said to have a similar idea by not cracking down on Windows piracy too hard ... better they're running a pirated copy of Windows than Linux or Mac! So yes, companies should give their stuff away for free. There is too much focus on dollars and money with how they operate, it's like we forget that they are made of people and that they SERVE other people (their customers). Everything having its price is an extrene sense of entitlement on behalf of management
        thih9 4y ago
        I appreciate the detailed reply. Offering free hands-on experience seems like a version of “work for exposure”; even if it can be effective at times for a given company, I’d say on a larger scale it makes the market less healthy. E.g. it might give unfair advantage to larger companies that can afford to offer free services; smaller businesses might have more trouble with growth and getting recognised.
thih9 4y ago
Sure it’s user hostile; but at this point it’s a “newsletter popup” level of user hostile; most businesses are doing it and you can reasonably stop assuming that you’ll be able to consume for free without distractions. (Again, I’m not talking about targeting an audience where open source projects are the majority, but about a more general scenario.)

john_cogs 4y ago

GitLab team member here. Through the GitLab for Open Source program, open source projects can receive Ultimate features for free. You can learn more about the program here: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/ https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
samatman 4y ago
I do assume you made this comment in good faith, but it's misleading: this offer is for nonprofits, constituted or otherwise, and not merely for open source projects. It's important for your company's messaging that you be accurate here. I'll also take the opportunity to express my disappointment that GitLab has decided that Microsoft's offering should be the home of any open-source project of significance; I think that's bad strategy. But it's not my call.
- john_cogs 4y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. You are correct that in order for projects to be eligible they must not be seeking profit. This is listed as a requirement on the program page: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/ https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/. You can see many of the open source projects of significance who are part of the program here: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/partners/ https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/partners/
  - thih9 4y ago
    Your second link lists Gitlab Open Source Partners, which is not the same as Gitlab Open Source Program > While most partners are also members of the GitLab for Open Source Program, not all are (as some partners are commercial open source entities and therefore ineligible for the program). Source: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relations/opensource-program/ https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati...

RobotToaster 4y ago

"My point is that launching with a free tier and applying limits later has been an effective monetization strategy for many successful startups." That's usually called bait and switch.

the_snooze 4y ago
It's not just limited to free services. Netflix is pulling the same stunt by imposing "added household" fees on top of existing concurrent streaming limits.
- doodlesdev 4y ago
  And they are destroying their business in the process. Trust is hard to earn, but really easy to lose. 1: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX/ 2: https://time.com/6198354/netflix-subscribers-loss-second-quarter-future/ https://time.com/6198354/netflix-subscribers-loss-second-qua... (If you have JavaScript disabled remove position: fixed from the body to read, or https://archive.ph/tGzqK https://archive.ph/tGzqK) 3: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62226912 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62226912