5 ms·

I was making a video CV recruitment based Startup. We used the API from Youtube and were thinking of changing to a paid plataform. We had to options, Framey.co

I was making a video CV recruitment based Startup. We used the API from Youtube and were thinking of changing to a paid plataform. We had to options, Framey.com and framebase.io. We almost choosed framey, but I left the startup. If the founder of framebase want a good advice from someone who used to be a potential customer, please change your pricing. Don't charge for minutes, minutes don't mean anything. Charge for numbers of video, even 1 minute videos. It's much better to know that I can have 1000 videos. And really choose what kind of charge you wanna make. If it is based on watched time or recorded. These are two different markets.

mmcclure 14y ago
For video, pricing by minute is much closer to the cost for the provider to encode that video, so Framebase users win because they end up paying a price much closer to the actual cost. What you're proposing would be akin to S3 just charging per file rather than by the amount of storage...
- dudurocha 14y ago
  I'm proposing in a view of a potential customer. If you see the pricing of a competitor, like framey.com, they make it easier for you to choose your estimated price range. It is just a more marketing standing point. What is better, 4gbs of music or 1000 songs?
  - mmcclure 14y ago
    I totally understand what you're saying, but I still disagree, at least for a service where you can upload arbitrary video. Framey is a bit different, because you can reasonably assume an upper limit to the amount of time a user will record themselves on a webcam in a browser (or restrict them to a max # of minutes). I know you were just using it as an example, but music just isn't a good comparison for this conversation. Video is simply much more expensive than audio in just about every way, from storage to encoding.
  - photorized 14y ago
    Songs are comparable in duration (and file size), videos are not. With UGC, video file size can easily vary by the factor of 1,000. So the infrastructure required to transcode, store, and deliver a 5GB file would cost much more, compared to a 5MB file. It's difficult to come up with "simple" pricing that would fit all.
    - mtrimpe 14y ago
      You could of course include a weasel-phrase like "videos over 5 minutes long count as one additional video for every additional 5 minutes."
akoumjian 14y ago
Well, I disagree. The per video or per MB pricing model is a huge disadvantage for businesses which know their videos will be short or high res input.
photorized 14y ago
We charge for minutes at Vive.ly. So far, the approach has worked. Easy to explain, too - you show a 3 min video to 1,000 people - you will use 3,000 minutes. P.S. I forgot to mention one key difference - in our case, it's a wallet payment, not a monthly fee. So if you bought a block of 3,000 min, it could last you a week or a year, depending on your usage.

mmcclure 14y ago

For video, pricing by minute is much closer to the cost for the provider to encode that video, so Framebase users win because they end up paying a price much closer to the actual cost. What you're proposing would be akin to S3 just charging per file rather than by the amount of storage...

dudurocha 14y ago
I'm proposing in a view of a potential customer. If you see the pricing of a competitor, like framey.com, they make it easier for you to choose your estimated price range. It is just a more marketing standing point. What is better, 4gbs of music or 1000 songs?
- mmcclure 14y ago
  I totally understand what you're saying, but I still disagree, at least for a service where you can upload arbitrary video. Framey is a bit different, because you can reasonably assume an upper limit to the amount of time a user will record themselves on a webcam in a browser (or restrict them to a max # of minutes). I know you were just using it as an example, but music just isn't a good comparison for this conversation. Video is simply much more expensive than audio in just about every way, from storage to encoding.
- photorized 14y ago
  Songs are comparable in duration (and file size), videos are not. With UGC, video file size can easily vary by the factor of 1,000. So the infrastructure required to transcode, store, and deliver a 5GB file would cost much more, compared to a 5MB file. It's difficult to come up with "simple" pricing that would fit all.
  - mtrimpe 14y ago
    You could of course include a weasel-phrase like "videos over 5 minutes long count as one additional video for every additional 5 minutes."

akoumjian 14y ago

Well, I disagree. The per video or per MB pricing model is a huge disadvantage for businesses which know their videos will be short or high res input.

photorized 14y ago

We charge for minutes at Vive.ly. So far, the approach has worked. Easy to explain, too - you show a 3 min video to 1,000 people - you will use 3,000 minutes. P.S. I forgot to mention one key difference - in our case, it's a wallet payment, not a monthly fee. So if you bought a block of 3,000 min, it could last you a week or a year, depending on your usage.