3 ms·

Depends very heavily on the product, but short answer 'yes'. I already do pay for Open Source SaaS products. For very critical infrastructure or for situations

Depends very heavily on the product, but short answer 'yes'. I already do pay for Open Source SaaS products. For very critical infrastructure or for situations where I care a lot about data security, maybe not. It's still not a totally easy sell, I don't seek out SaaS solutions to my problems necessarily. But there are situations where I would (and again, actively do) pay for convenience and for someone else to handle deployment and security for me. It's actually a much, much harder sell to get me to pay for a SaaS solution that can't be self-hosted and that isn't Open Source. Just as one example, I pay for Wallabag because I don't want to deal with deploying it. I would not pay for Pocket. The Open Source part of a hosted software solution is about giving me a sense of security that it's safe to use the product in the first place. The way I see it, the hosting is a completely separate service from that. Once you've convinced me that it's safe to use your product and that if something goes wrong I can just move to self-hosting, then at that point you can make the sales pitch to me, "and also wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to self-host?" > would you still pay around $5 to get the cloud version of the app? I'll also say that for personal usage around $5 a month falls basically squarely into my "this is kind of an impulse purchase" bucket. If you're charging $20-40 a month for a personal service that I'm using just for myself independently, then like... I don't know, do I really need it? Is it really worth paying for something I can do myself? But $5 a month is very squarely in the range where that thinking completely flips and I start saying, "I don't know, do I really need to spend a day setting up a VPS? Over $5? It's not worth it, I want to just shoot the dev some money and have one less thing to worry about on my monthly todo list." But again, obviously that's somewhat software-specific and depends a little bit on whether or not it is genuinely something that I really want to use. For business use-cases where it's something more important, I'd probably be willing to pay more.

graderjs 3y ago
> The Open Source part of a hosted software solution is about giving me a sense of security that it's safe to use the product in the first place. Do you mean as in auditable? Would you settle for source available for this use case? Sounds like you also value the ability to use it to self-host for free if something goes wrong, right? My company makes a security and automation product that customers self-host (we do the deployment for them if they need, which typically they do except where you need to be cleared, then we train on a demo system and they do it themselves), but we don't make it open source because we think it's hard to capture the value in that case. As in: you can self-host valuable IP for free for commercial use under OSSL, and we get volume-discounted 5/seat/mo with SaaS if you really want to? We're scared people will just not pay. I guess the jury is still out for us, but we used to have a OSS product with degraded quality, but we found it inefficient because customers would try to upgrade that rather than bothering with licensing, get stuck, then get fed up. So patient was a limited resource. So we remove the artificial limitations, but also make it non-open-source, but free for noncommercial use (governments, non-profits, etc, because they are either too big to close, or didn't have budget, but their adoption is good signal). So we won't do OSS in future for that product. We make it source available, so it can be audited, and free to use non-commercially, but not free to self-host commercially (possible to, but you need to license it). We haven't gone the SaaS route because: 1) customers often want to use their own infra anyway, 2) customers have different customization needs, 3) we always thought about SaaS like 1000s of individual consumer accounts and we weren't sure that was the right fit, and 4) embarrassingly it's pretty complex to build the infra for SaaS especially without being sure there are customers for that. Tho with the recession, we're considering adding SaaS. Our competitors often have SaaS offerings, and the pricing certainly can work at "developer prices" (5 a month or less, depending).
- danShumway 3y ago
  > Do you mean as in auditable? Auditable is part of it I suppose; but no, that's not what I meant. I meant security in the sense of "do I feel safe that I'm not going to get burned by it?" Specifically, if something goes wrong or I need to self host or it needs to get forked, can the problem be fixed? Security in the sense of "am I tying myself to a service where I have no control?" It's less about fear of getting hacked and more about fear of a service turning into <insert-basically-any-number-of-proprietary-saas-services-from-the-past-few-years-here>. Source available would be a harder sell for me but depending on the terms not an impossible sell. I do use some source available products, but not a ton of them. My main question when I'm looking at a SaaS service is "what are the situations where I'll suddenly lose access to this?" Free for non-commercial use only works if it's a product where I absolutely know for certain that I'm not ever going to use it commercially (and I don't just mean selling hosting as a service; if I'm building any product at all that depends on it, I need to know really clearly in the license that I'm allowed to do so). Otherwise, I don't have that sense of security. But there are products I use where that's fine. If it is a purely personal thing where I'm not going to use it as a business, I wouldn't necessarily drop a product over a source available license I guess. I pay for and I use Aseprite commercially and Aseprite is source-available. But Aseprite is not a SaaS service, and its license explicitly allows me to modify and self-compile it for internal use even commercially. The risks are not very high for me, now that I've bought the thing I'm basically allowed to do whatever with it. If I have to commercially license the product on a continual basis to use it commercially then yeah the auditability is nice, but otherwise I don't really see what the difference is with a proprietary product. If the company gets bought out Google and your product gets canceled or turned into a mess or merged into another Google product, I'm still going to be in the same situation where I won't be able to do anything about it and where I won't be able to self-host. That's more of what I was trying to get at when I talked about lack of security. --- I guess the TLDR is that if a SaaS product is actually OSS, my thought is: - as an individual I'm willing to potentially consider paying for hosting if it's cheap enough, and as company I would pretty much always pay for hosting unless there's a strong reason for me to care about the data storage or customizations. If it's source available, my thought is: - as an individual I'm willing to consider paying for hosting depending on my usage, but as a company I'm probably not touching it. I would only consider using a source-available SaaS product if I'm very confident that my usage is never going to be subject to the restrictions in the license. Note the phrase "using" there; there are some SaaS products that I avoid even though it would be free to use them. For example, I'm never going to choose to build a product I control on top of MongoDB if I can help it; even though I wouldn't have to pay for hosting to do so. Getting back to my original comment, there are two parts to selling SaaS: 1. Convincing me to use the product in the first place 2. Convincing me to pay for hosting The first step is the hard part, the second step is the easier part. If I feel comfortable using it, it's not that hard to convince me to pay for hosting. For the most part, I do not want to self-host most of my software; I want that to be someone else's problem. But I'm never going to get to the "pay for hosting" step if I don't feel comfortable using it. At its best, SaaS should make me feel like I'm getting rid of a dependency, that there's a part of my infrastructure I don't need to worry about because someone else is handling it. At its worst, SaaS introduces a new dependency because it means that I can lose access at any time and that any infrastructure I build around having access can be rendered useless at any time. At its best, SaaS makes my infrastructure more robust by delegating responsibility, at its worst it makes my infrastructure more fragile because it introduces another point of potential failure if the service goes away or becomes unusable. And the license is very often the biggest thing that determines which of those scenarios is the case for a given service.

graderjs 3y ago

> The Open Source part of a hosted software solution is about giving me a sense of security that it's safe to use the product in the first place. Do you mean as in auditable? Would you settle for source available for this use case? Sounds like you also value the ability to use it to self-host for free if something goes wrong, right? My company makes a security and automation product that customers self-host (we do the deployment for them if they need, which typically they do except where you need to be cleared, then we train on a demo system and they do it themselves), but we don't make it open source because we think it's hard to capture the value in that case. As in: you can self-host valuable IP for free for commercial use under OSSL, and we get volume-discounted 5/seat/mo with SaaS if you really want to? We're scared people will just not pay. I guess the jury is still out for us, but we used to have a OSS product with degraded quality, but we found it inefficient because customers would try to upgrade that rather than bothering with licensing, get stuck, then get fed up. So patient was a limited resource. So we remove the artificial limitations, but also make it non-open-source, but free for noncommercial use (governments, non-profits, etc, because they are either too big to close, or didn't have budget, but their adoption is good signal). So we won't do OSS in future for that product. We make it source available, so it can be audited, and free to use non-commercially, but not free to self-host commercially (possible to, but you need to license it). We haven't gone the SaaS route because: 1) customers often want to use their own infra anyway, 2) customers have different customization needs, 3) we always thought about SaaS like 1000s of individual consumer accounts and we weren't sure that was the right fit, and 4) embarrassingly it's pretty complex to build the infra for SaaS especially without being sure there are customers for that. Tho with the recession, we're considering adding SaaS. Our competitors often have SaaS offerings, and the pricing certainly can work at "developer prices" (5 a month or less, depending).

danShumway 3y ago
> Do you mean as in auditable? Auditable is part of it I suppose; but no, that's not what I meant. I meant security in the sense of "do I feel safe that I'm not going to get burned by it?" Specifically, if something goes wrong or I need to self host or it needs to get forked, can the problem be fixed? Security in the sense of "am I tying myself to a service where I have no control?" It's less about fear of getting hacked and more about fear of a service turning into <insert-basically-any-number-of-proprietary-saas-services-from-the-past-few-years-here>. Source available would be a harder sell for me but depending on the terms not an impossible sell. I do use some source available products, but not a ton of them. My main question when I'm looking at a SaaS service is "what are the situations where I'll suddenly lose access to this?" Free for non-commercial use only works if it's a product where I absolutely know for certain that I'm not ever going to use it commercially (and I don't just mean selling hosting as a service; if I'm building any product at all that depends on it, I need to know really clearly in the license that I'm allowed to do so). Otherwise, I don't have that sense of security. But there are products I use where that's fine. If it is a purely personal thing where I'm not going to use it as a business, I wouldn't necessarily drop a product over a source available license I guess. I pay for and I use Aseprite commercially and Aseprite is source-available. But Aseprite is not a SaaS service, and its license explicitly allows me to modify and self-compile it for internal use even commercially. The risks are not very high for me, now that I've bought the thing I'm basically allowed to do whatever with it. If I have to commercially license the product on a continual basis to use it commercially then yeah the auditability is nice, but otherwise I don't really see what the difference is with a proprietary product. If the company gets bought out Google and your product gets canceled or turned into a mess or merged into another Google product, I'm still going to be in the same situation where I won't be able to do anything about it and where I won't be able to self-host. That's more of what I was trying to get at when I talked about lack of security. --- I guess the TLDR is that if a SaaS product is actually OSS, my thought is: - as an individual I'm willing to potentially consider paying for hosting if it's cheap enough, and as company I would pretty much always pay for hosting unless there's a strong reason for me to care about the data storage or customizations. If it's source available, my thought is: - as an individual I'm willing to consider paying for hosting depending on my usage, but as a company I'm probably not touching it. I would only consider using a source-available SaaS product if I'm very confident that my usage is never going to be subject to the restrictions in the license. Note the phrase "using" there; there are some SaaS products that I avoid even though it would be free to use them. For example, I'm never going to choose to build a product I control on top of MongoDB if I can help it; even though I wouldn't have to pay for hosting to do so. Getting back to my original comment, there are two parts to selling SaaS: 1. Convincing me to use the product in the first place 2. Convincing me to pay for hosting The first step is the hard part, the second step is the easier part. If I feel comfortable using it, it's not that hard to convince me to pay for hosting. For the most part, I do not want to self-host most of my software; I want that to be someone else's problem. But I'm never going to get to the "pay for hosting" step if I don't feel comfortable using it. At its best, SaaS should make me feel like I'm getting rid of a dependency, that there's a part of my infrastructure I don't need to worry about because someone else is handling it. At its worst, SaaS introduces a new dependency because it means that I can lose access at any time and that any infrastructure I build around having access can be rendered useless at any time. At its best, SaaS makes my infrastructure more robust by delegating responsibility, at its worst it makes my infrastructure more fragile because it introduces another point of potential failure if the service goes away or becomes unusable. And the license is very often the biggest thing that determines which of those scenarios is the case for a given service.