3 ms·
Workspace was $12/month, now it will be $14 with AI included. AI was $20/month. Looks like AI as an add-on wasn't selling too well.
by grajaganDev 2y ago
Workspace was $12/month, now it will be $14 with AI included. AI was $20/month.
Looks like AI as an add-on wasn't selling too well.
- jsheard 2y agoUsers will continue to be beaten with the AI cudgel until morale improves.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoAh it's new tech, they just need to get used to it until they can't do without!
- Macha 2y agoI do wonder if these kind of price cuts (see also Microsoft) will finally stop the demands from investors that everything be AI.
- makeitdouble 2y agoWhen it's baked into the default price, more sales can be attributed to it (whether it's true or not), and more users will have used it (they're effectively paying for it, they'll at least try once) On paper it will look good, as long as a trend of users vocally bailing out of Workspace doesn't happen. And given the enterprise nature of it, I don't see that happening.
- sensanaty 2y agoMy company is doing some similar crap. Half a year wasted on some bullshit AI thing that half the engineers were questioning from the start. Usage numbers are in the low 10%-20% range and are dropping despite massive push from marketing and onboarding teams. The solution is to of course push even more AI stuff. The actual quote one of the C-level used was "Users don't understand the power of AI yet!" and I could barely hold in my laugh when I heard it. I've been feeling like the world has lost their fucking minds with the AI push. I know that VC/investors play a big role in it, but I've never seen anything quite like it. The AI toothbrush [1] really took the cake for me for peak of absurdity, I wonder what these geniuses will come up with next... [1] https://www.oralb.co.uk/en-gb/product-collections/genius-x https://www.oralb.co.uk/en-gb/product-collections/genius-x
- wildrhythms 2y agoSame story at my employer last year and this year. Leadership very clearly stated their goal is to increase AI engagement. Solving actual user issues? Not mentioned once. At least the shareholders are happy, right?
- paxys 2y agoPretty much. A small set of customers weren't willing to pay for AI? Now everyone has to pay for AI.
- from-nibly 2y agoBob need's that bonus.
- grajaganDev 2y agoCollective punishment.
- hackmiester 2y agoCan I pay $20 to keep the version without AI?
- ASalazarMX 2y agoGoogle: Is that a trick question?
- whalesalad 2y agoShid. I made the mistake of getting my entire family onto my google apps 15+ years ago. Now I am paying for about 8 people every month and this will just make it worse.
- yieldcrv 2y agoyes this particular seat price increase might be the one that breaks the camel’s back an ignorable monthly credit card charge, to one that has to go
- ra 2y agoI expect take up was in the low single-digit percentage points. So charging every single subscriber $2/user (even if they don't want it) probably yields significantly more revenue.
- starfallg 2y agoPretty sure that's not how the maths worked out, but rather $2 is the amount that would cover the cost of running the service based on data of existing customer usage levels. This is a strategic play, not a revenue play.
- nashashmi 2y agoIt was selling well enough. It just was not getting enough traction. By bundling AI, they are giving exposure to everyone who didn’t want to use it or didn’t see the need for it. If they pulled it away in 2 years, and then lowered the price and charged separately for AI, I think more people would see it as necessary. AI is a better search engine. And a better grammar check for your emails. And a better writer for your reporting.
- goatlover 2y agoIs it really though?