4 ms·

Hi, looks like an interesting service! I've already sent it to a bunch of my friends who I think can get a lot of value out of it. Unfortunately, I don't think

by tych0 14y ago

Hi, looks like an interesting service! I've already sent it to a bunch of my friends who I think can get a lot of value out of it. Unfortunately, I don't think I could extract $25/mo out of the service myself. Do you have any plans for alternative pricing structures? I would definitely pay $100 for a block of 20 requests that I could use over the course of a year, say.

justin0469 14y ago
I'd like something like that too
nikhilalmeida 14y ago
+1 ted. A feature request right here.
tijs 14y ago
I was thinking along the same lines. I'd much rather 'pre pay' for tasks than have a monthly limit. Else i'll have to think if a task is worthwhile enough to use up one of my 5 tasks. And i would hate to run out of task slots some months but just not often enough to warrant an upgrade.
intended 14y ago
Its actually very funny, to me, that you suggested this. In my previous job, this was precisely the structure the firm evolved to give to certain customers who were on the fence about the service. (B2B - financial Services) We had one tweak to it, and once people used it, they never got out.
Wintamute 14y ago
I doubt they would implement something like this. Their business model is likely built on a) having regular income and b) many users not using all their tasks per month (i.e. paying for something they aren't using). It's the same reason services like Dropbox don't offer a pay-for-what-you-use plan - the majority of their income comes from people paying the set monthly fees but not using anywhere near the maximum storage/bandwidth.
- tych0 14y ago
  Sure, but there's no reason you can't offer a non-monthly plan at the true operating cost * 1.(your markup). It might be slightly (or vastly) more expensive per request than the monthly plan, but guys like me would still buy 20 or 30, instead of having no revenue from us at all...

by tych0 14y ago

justin0469 14y ago

I'd like something like that too

nikhilalmeida 14y ago

+1 ted. A feature request right here.

tijs 14y ago

I was thinking along the same lines. I'd much rather 'pre pay' for tasks than have a monthly limit. Else i'll have to think if a task is worthwhile enough to use up one of my 5 tasks. And i would hate to run out of task slots some months but just not often enough to warrant an upgrade.

intended 14y ago

Its actually very funny, to me, that you suggested this. In my previous job, this was precisely the structure the firm evolved to give to certain customers who were on the fence about the service. (B2B - financial Services) We had one tweak to it, and once people used it, they never got out.

Wintamute 14y ago

I doubt they would implement something like this. Their business model is likely built on a) having regular income and b) many users not using all their tasks per month (i.e. paying for something they aren't using). It's the same reason services like Dropbox don't offer a pay-for-what-you-use plan - the majority of their income comes from people paying the set monthly fees but not using anywhere near the maximum storage/bandwidth.

tych0 14y ago
Sure, but there's no reason you can't offer a non-monthly plan at the true operating cost * 1.(your markup). It might be slightly (or vastly) more expensive per request than the monthly plan, but guys like me would still buy 20 or 30, instead of having no revenue from us at all...