5 ms·

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. We had yearly prices before but most people expect a price per month (our prices are pretty low so many people assumed our y

by sytse 11y ago

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. We had yearly prices before but most people expect a price per month (our prices are pretty low so many people assumed our yearly price was our monthly one). I agree that now it is hard to make out the minimum order size, you need to do x10x12. Would it be an improvement if we add '$390 per user pack' to the list of items below the price to save you this calculation? BTW If you want to try it out we do have a money back guaranty.

merb 11y ago
it would be great if you would change it to something like "monthly subscription" "per user pricing". Which means I could start with 2 users, add 10 and pay for them and maybe then I will kick two in the next month and will pay for 10. Paying on demand is something that I think would be really really good. AWS style.
- sytse 11y ago
  I understand that need but having smaller tiers that 10 people is inefficient on our side and we would need to raise the price.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Your current pricing model is fine. If someone needs GitLab, they'll pay for it. If they don't pay for it, they don't need it. $30-60/year is cheap, even for a hobbyist project.
    - mikekchar 11y ago
      I think you may have validated what the OP was saying :-) It's $3.25 per user per month, but the minimum order is 10 users. So the minimum price is $390 per year.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Looks like my math was off. Still agree with Gitlab. Focus on business customers, not hobbyists.
        merb 11y ago
        We aren't hobbyists, we are just a small company 5+-1. And sometimes we hire people for a small amount of time, which could exceed 10. So for that time we would need to have a bigger license?!
        sytse 11y ago
        If you exceed 10 non-blocked users you would need a bigger license. If you can block certain users at certain times you would be able to use 1 user pack (the users are not named).
habith 11y ago
Thanks for your reply. Price x12 like you said is standard, it's the x10x12 that caught me off guard. I think some language and price listing adjustments like you suggested would be a great improvement. Even if it's as simple as $32.5 per user pack per month (charged yearly).
- sytse 11y ago
  I don't think pricing per user pack is what people expect, per user seems to be the more common question.
  - habith 11y ago
    But you _charge_ per user pack, do you not? Can we purchase 17 licenses? How about 23? We have around 20 Backblaze licenses that we pay a bit over $1000 per year for. It makes sense for them to advertise the price per user because they charge us that way. This is akin to Pepsi sticking a huge sign over their 24 pack at the department store saying "NOW ONLY 99 CENTS PER CAN!" minimum 24, in increments of 24. Anyway, like I said, the way the pricing is advertised turned an interested/potential customer away.
    - sytse 11y ago
      I've put the user pack price at the text below the pricing so it is clear from the start https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/7e6b6f873dcbe3e8900e34781651a2164d8b66b5 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/7e6b6f87...

by sytse 11y ago

merb 11y ago

it would be great if you would change it to something like "monthly subscription" "per user pricing". Which means I could start with 2 users, add 10 and pay for them and maybe then I will kick two in the next month and will pay for 10. Paying on demand is something that I think would be really really good. AWS style.

sytse 11y ago
I understand that need but having smaller tiers that 10 people is inefficient on our side and we would need to raise the price.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Your current pricing model is fine. If someone needs GitLab, they'll pay for it. If they don't pay for it, they don't need it. $30-60/year is cheap, even for a hobbyist project.
  - mikekchar 11y ago
    I think you may have validated what the OP was saying :-) It's $3.25 per user per month, but the minimum order is 10 users. So the minimum price is $390 per year.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Looks like my math was off. Still agree with Gitlab. Focus on business customers, not hobbyists.
      - merb 11y ago
        We aren't hobbyists, we are just a small company 5+-1. And sometimes we hire people for a small amount of time, which could exceed 10. So for that time we would need to have a bigger license?!
        sytse 11y ago
        If you exceed 10 non-blocked users you would need a bigger license. If you can block certain users at certain times you would be able to use 1 user pack (the users are not named).

habith 11y ago

Thanks for your reply. Price x12 like you said is standard, it's the x10x12 that caught me off guard. I think some language and price listing adjustments like you suggested would be a great improvement. Even if it's as simple as $32.5 per user pack per month (charged yearly).

sytse 11y ago
I don't think pricing per user pack is what people expect, per user seems to be the more common question.
- habith 11y ago
  But you _charge_ per user pack, do you not? Can we purchase 17 licenses? How about 23? We have around 20 Backblaze licenses that we pay a bit over $1000 per year for. It makes sense for them to advertise the price per user because they charge us that way. This is akin to Pepsi sticking a huge sign over their 24 pack at the department store saying "NOW ONLY 99 CENTS PER CAN!" minimum 24, in increments of 24. Anyway, like I said, the way the pricing is advertised turned an interested/potential customer away.
  - sytse 11y ago
    I've put the user pack price at the text below the pricing so it is clear from the start https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/7e6b6f873dcbe3e8900e34781651a2164d8b66b5 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/commit/7e6b6f87...