4 ms·

- Models will be released - Free to use for non commercial projects - 20$/m subscription needed if project has less than $1m annual revenue or <1m users - Un

- Models will be released - Free to use for non commercial projects - 20$/m subscription needed if project has less than $1m annual revenue or <1m users - Undisclosed "Enterprise" subscription needed for projects larger than above To me the $240/y sounds pretty awesome for a smaller commercial project, and i like they've set the threshold pretty high up. But still don't like "undisclosed" black box enterprise pricing though when they're running their own API, because it basically means they can tax you to death if you build a service that competes with their API right - so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech?

theolivenbaum 2y ago
*under $1m annual revenue and <1m users
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Lacerda69 2y ago
What SaaS company discloses their Enterprise prices?
- MyFirstSass 2y ago
  A tangent but i believe all pricing should public information by law above some threshold to battle corruption, nepotism, cartel making and monopolies. I've seen too many governments and even medium sized companies paying absurd amounts to some shitty locked in cloud platform with lots of better alternatives, because someone got kickbacks, gifts, vacations or a seat on some board, and everyone should be more enraged. The EU has tried to battle this with various public procurement processes but it's a big clown show of course so i don't know what the solution is.
  - Turing_Machine 2y ago
    Unless there's absolutely no alternative, and it's something I desperately need, I basically won't buy anything that says "call for pricing" or some such, because I interpret that as "call so one of our trained liars (i.e., salesmen) can figure out how hard we can screw you". In many cases I'd even pay a premium to avoid talking to one of those people.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      You're not the target market, the CTO, CIO, or business development representatives are. So many developers say they won't ever buy "call for pricing" software, like, yeah, they know you won't, in fact that's what they bank on.
      - Sharlin 2y ago
        And the execs won’t really worry about "how hard the salesmen can screw them", they know the rules of the game and understand that negotiations are negotiations. It’s a negotiator’s job to try to get a good deal, and that works both ways.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Yes. Devs who don't know sales are obviously not their demographic, they'll be speaking to layers of other biz dev people before they even get to the execs, and each one knows exactly how to extract concessions and discounts, and the opposing salesperson knows exactly how much of a discount they can give. In this way, it is much more of an efficient market than most devs think. Devs' reaction to all this is honestly the same as when a non-technical exec tells a dev why they "can't just get it done in a day, it shouldn't be that hard right?" People have their own competencies and are usually blind to others'.
      - pid-1 2y ago
        CTO in a financial institution here. I don't talk to sales.
        2y ago
  - dheera 2y ago
    I fully agree, or at the VERY LEAST pricing information should be disclosable and any NDA around pricing should be automatically void and unenforceable. How the hell do I know they're not giving me higher prices due to racial profiling or some other unethical reason? That would allow, at least, some sort of website or chrome plugin to exist that fetches and displays previously-submitted pricing information as an overlay next to any idiotic "call for pricing" statements. That is the way I would run a country if I was its president.
  - EricMausler 2y ago
    I specialize in costing/pricing, not in saas however. There are a lot of reasons why what you are asking for is likely not realistic. It unfortunately does get abused, though, and I fully agree with how bullshit some of the arrangements are. It's just the people taking advantage of the situation are doing so knowing that the "cover" for it is legitimate. Maybe there are ways to address the abuse without forcing upfront pricing?
    - pooloo 2y ago
      Cost/pricing is similar enough to a salary, why is it not realistic to have these costs front facing? I can't see anything positive from the consumer perspective with hiding the numbers. The business side, there is always a reason to hide things.
      - EricMausler 2y ago
        I think demanding upfront pricing could hurt the customer. The company would be forced to overestimate their costs to cover the risk associated with unknown use-case details, making the enterprise price inflated. There would be a big "**" next to the price as well with a long list of conditions that need to be met. The true costs are not front facing because it may not be clear which part of your product is going to be bearing most of the weight of the enterprise customers use-case until you know exactly what they are buying. Your costs may change a lot based on the nature and scale of what they are buying. For example, you may be rate limited on a background service they use and the customer usecase will likely pish you over your limit. the next product tier from the background service vendor that's required to fulfill the enterprise company's use-case may cost way more and offer way more capacity than that company is going to use by itself. So you have to make a bet on how much cost to assign to that customer, and how much to assign to other/future customers given you buy that new tier and use it to change what you offer to other customers to try to make use of it. It may lower your cost overall if it supports a feature you can upsell relatively easily. Or it may be a service hardly used at all andyou really can't justify going up to that next tier unless this one enterprise customer pays for nearly all of the added cost
CharlesW 2y ago
> …they can tax you to death if you build a service that competes with their API right… I'm curious why that'd be a concern, since building a service that effectively just resells an API isn't a viable business model.
ranit 2y ago
> But still don't like "undisclosed" black box enterprise pricing though when they're running their own API, because it basically means they can tax you to death if you build a service that competes with their API right - so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech? "undisclosed" doesn't imply changing the price after it was negotiated with you. It just mean they will negotiate the contracts for large projects, without disclosing the terms to the public ... in my view.
- black3r 2y ago
  The "undisclosed" also mean they can just straight up give you different prices than they give to your competition which can affect fair competition in your field. Imagine that you compete with them in some different field..., or an easier one - if you compete with their investors' other investments..., or you're in a country with politicians donation/spending limits (which are common outside USA) and they give their software for $1 to "that one annoying politician" and it won't count as a discount towards their donation limit, because the "original price" is unknown.
  - chmod775 2y ago
    > The "undisclosed" also mean they can just straight up give you different prices than they give to your competition which can affect fair competition in your field. They could do that anyways. This changes nothing. Negotiating custom contracts is standard practice at the high end anyways. If your company is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each month on something at list price, chances are you either got too much money or the company is run by suckers.
wongarsu 2y ago
> so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech I assume stability wants to be in the role of building AI models not applications, so if you provide a clear and nontrivial value add beyond their API you should be fine. If you build a tool that allows architects to make their building renderings more lifelike by adding realistic crowds, vegetation, storefronts etc right from the comfort of their existing tooling it's in Stability's interest that you are successful. If you only resell their API but in green they might not be as invested in your success.
- alexvitkov 2y ago
  "Should be fine" doesn't cut it if you want to base your business on it and have no alternatives.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    Every Android or iOS App is a "should be fine" type of deal. So are lots of other things. If you are really worried I'm sure there's a sales person willing to take your call right now. It's not ideal, but honestly not that exceptional. And if push comes to shove you do have alternatives, you just need to sacrifice a bit of quality, maybe deployment complexity, and tune your prompts differently for one of the other models.
    - daveguy 2y ago
      Do android and iOS stores have undisclosed fee structures for high revenue or high usage apps? I was under the impression that the fees were at least transparent, even if they do represent monopolistic rent seeking.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        There were several instances that came out in recent court cases of the app stores negotiating custom deals with strategically-important apps. E.g. Spotify: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-android-billing-commission-secret-deal https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-... So typical "above this negotiating power, let's talk terms", and everybody smaller has to pay list price.
etaioinshrdlu 2y ago
The enterprise subscription costs $120k/year. You might be able to haggle it down.
BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
I'm still goofing around with stable diffusion 1.5 based models. It has such a vibrant open source scene and it's free for commercial usage forever so.. I'm not really interested in V3. I guess corporations might be or whatever?
dheera 2y ago
Seems ripe for a "project sharding" platform that splits your project into multiple identical backend projects that each have <1M annual revenue and <1M of your users. Would save you from the unnecessary calls and coffee chats, you just pay N * subscription fee and get on with your life. You could probably also use part of the revenue to buy treasury bonds and automagically pay the subscription fees, and it would be a closed intervention-free system.

theolivenbaum 2y ago

*under $1m annual revenue and <1m users

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Lacerda69 2y ago

What SaaS company discloses their Enterprise prices?

MyFirstSass 2y ago
A tangent but i believe all pricing should public information by law above some threshold to battle corruption, nepotism, cartel making and monopolies. I've seen too many governments and even medium sized companies paying absurd amounts to some shitty locked in cloud platform with lots of better alternatives, because someone got kickbacks, gifts, vacations or a seat on some board, and everyone should be more enraged. The EU has tried to battle this with various public procurement processes but it's a big clown show of course so i don't know what the solution is.
- Turing_Machine 2y ago
  Unless there's absolutely no alternative, and it's something I desperately need, I basically won't buy anything that says "call for pricing" or some such, because I interpret that as "call so one of our trained liars (i.e., salesmen) can figure out how hard we can screw you". In many cases I'd even pay a premium to avoid talking to one of those people.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    You're not the target market, the CTO, CIO, or business development representatives are. So many developers say they won't ever buy "call for pricing" software, like, yeah, they know you won't, in fact that's what they bank on.
    - Sharlin 2y ago
      And the execs won’t really worry about "how hard the salesmen can screw them", they know the rules of the game and understand that negotiations are negotiations. It’s a negotiator’s job to try to get a good deal, and that works both ways.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        Yes. Devs who don't know sales are obviously not their demographic, they'll be speaking to layers of other biz dev people before they even get to the execs, and each one knows exactly how to extract concessions and discounts, and the opposing salesperson knows exactly how much of a discount they can give. In this way, it is much more of an efficient market than most devs think. Devs' reaction to all this is honestly the same as when a non-technical exec tells a dev why they "can't just get it done in a day, it shouldn't be that hard right?" People have their own competencies and are usually blind to others'.
    - pid-1 2y ago
      CTO in a financial institution here. I don't talk to sales.
      - 2y ago
- dheera 2y ago
  I fully agree, or at the VERY LEAST pricing information should be disclosable and any NDA around pricing should be automatically void and unenforceable. How the hell do I know they're not giving me higher prices due to racial profiling or some other unethical reason? That would allow, at least, some sort of website or chrome plugin to exist that fetches and displays previously-submitted pricing information as an overlay next to any idiotic "call for pricing" statements. That is the way I would run a country if I was its president.
- EricMausler 2y ago
  I specialize in costing/pricing, not in saas however. There are a lot of reasons why what you are asking for is likely not realistic. It unfortunately does get abused, though, and I fully agree with how bullshit some of the arrangements are. It's just the people taking advantage of the situation are doing so knowing that the "cover" for it is legitimate. Maybe there are ways to address the abuse without forcing upfront pricing?
  - pooloo 2y ago
    Cost/pricing is similar enough to a salary, why is it not realistic to have these costs front facing? I can't see anything positive from the consumer perspective with hiding the numbers. The business side, there is always a reason to hide things.
    - EricMausler 2y ago
      I think demanding upfront pricing could hurt the customer. The company would be forced to overestimate their costs to cover the risk associated with unknown use-case details, making the enterprise price inflated. There would be a big "**" next to the price as well with a long list of conditions that need to be met. The true costs are not front facing because it may not be clear which part of your product is going to be bearing most of the weight of the enterprise customers use-case until you know exactly what they are buying. Your costs may change a lot based on the nature and scale of what they are buying. For example, you may be rate limited on a background service they use and the customer usecase will likely pish you over your limit. the next product tier from the background service vendor that's required to fulfill the enterprise company's use-case may cost way more and offer way more capacity than that company is going to use by itself. So you have to make a bet on how much cost to assign to that customer, and how much to assign to other/future customers given you buy that new tier and use it to change what you offer to other customers to try to make use of it. It may lower your cost overall if it supports a feature you can upsell relatively easily. Or it may be a service hardly used at all andyou really can't justify going up to that next tier unless this one enterprise customer pays for nearly all of the added cost

CharlesW 2y ago

> …they can tax you to death if you build a service that competes with their API right… I'm curious why that'd be a concern, since building a service that effectively just resells an API isn't a viable business model.

ranit 2y ago

> But still don't like "undisclosed" black box enterprise pricing though when they're running their own API, because it basically means they can tax you to death if you build a service that competes with their API right - so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech? "undisclosed" doesn't imply changing the price after it was negotiated with you. It just mean they will negotiate the contracts for large projects, without disclosing the terms to the public ... in my view.

black3r 2y ago
The "undisclosed" also mean they can just straight up give you different prices than they give to your competition which can affect fair competition in your field. Imagine that you compete with them in some different field..., or an easier one - if you compete with their investors' other investments..., or you're in a country with politicians donation/spending limits (which are common outside USA) and they give their software for $1 to "that one annoying politician" and it won't count as a discount towards their donation limit, because the "original price" is unknown.
- chmod775 2y ago
  > The "undisclosed" also mean they can just straight up give you different prices than they give to your competition which can affect fair competition in your field. They could do that anyways. This changes nothing. Negotiating custom contracts is standard practice at the high end anyways. If your company is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each month on something at list price, chances are you either got too much money or the company is run by suckers.

wongarsu 2y ago

> so in effect only viable to create small companies with this tech I assume stability wants to be in the role of building AI models not applications, so if you provide a clear and nontrivial value add beyond their API you should be fine. If you build a tool that allows architects to make their building renderings more lifelike by adding realistic crowds, vegetation, storefronts etc right from the comfort of their existing tooling it's in Stability's interest that you are successful. If you only resell their API but in green they might not be as invested in your success.

alexvitkov 2y ago
"Should be fine" doesn't cut it if you want to base your business on it and have no alternatives.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Every Android or iOS App is a "should be fine" type of deal. So are lots of other things. If you are really worried I'm sure there's a sales person willing to take your call right now. It's not ideal, but honestly not that exceptional. And if push comes to shove you do have alternatives, you just need to sacrifice a bit of quality, maybe deployment complexity, and tune your prompts differently for one of the other models.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Do android and iOS stores have undisclosed fee structures for high revenue or high usage apps? I was under the impression that the fees were at least transparent, even if they do represent monopolistic rent seeking.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      There were several instances that came out in recent court cases of the app stores negotiating custom deals with strategically-important apps. E.g. Spotify: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-android-billing-commission-secret-deal https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-... So typical "above this negotiating power, let's talk terms", and everybody smaller has to pay list price.

etaioinshrdlu 2y ago

The enterprise subscription costs $120k/year. You might be able to haggle it down.

BaculumMeumEst 2y ago

I'm still goofing around with stable diffusion 1.5 based models. It has such a vibrant open source scene and it's free for commercial usage forever so.. I'm not really interested in V3. I guess corporations might be or whatever?

dheera 2y ago

Seems ripe for a "project sharding" platform that splits your project into multiple identical backend projects that each have <1M annual revenue and <1M of your users. Would save you from the unnecessary calls and coffee chats, you just pay N * subscription fee and get on with your life. You could probably also use part of the revenue to buy treasury bonds and automagically pay the subscription fees, and it would be a closed intervention-free system.