Premium apps
-
Pricing is so hard. Good luck!
-
I'm personally relieved that you've stepped away from user limits. Even though my plan was grandfathered in, it made it a little harder for me to recommend the platform to organizations of a certain size that would probably just remain on Google Apps.
Requiring more per month to gain access to certain apps that are more burdensome to maintain is an easy sell to consumers. It could make sense to charge for premium apps in a more a la carte fashion too. As you have it is fine as well.
On a related note, no one wants to feel like they are being taxed for being business or for being misidentified as business. I would just call it a premium plan, because no one feels bad for paying a premium to get premium service.
Just my $0.02.
-
User limits
Since many apps are packaged to have their own user management and thus not bound by the user limits, user limits are not entirely enforceable, cause confusion and dis/advantages users of certain apps. Removing user limits altogether would be a good move.
Premium apps
The advantage is to incentivise users who can likely afford to pay more. In the long run, however, it may stifle community development efforts. Existing apps that are marked premium may receive less development efforts from the community as only Business plan users can use them. Apps yet to come may also see less community help to package and test because of uncertainties on whether they'll become premium. So I would recommend against doing premium apps. Alternatively we at least need clear communications on how new apps will be designated as premium if we're sticking with premium apps.
App limits
It seems limits on the number of apps that a client can run is the only enforceable method that won't inadvertently disincentivise community efforts. And it is easily justifiable that a client pays more for unlimited apps, as (for example) more app installations will likely increase the chance for requiring support from the Cloudron team. Given the choices right now, I would recommend keeping app limits for the "Basic" plan. The "Business" plan, or whatever the top tier plan, still calls for unlimited apps as we don't want to put a ceiling on business opportunities
Naming
Call the "Basic" plan "Standard" or "Essential". It feels better as a customer to pay $15 for something I need rather than some lowly minimum.
Call the "Business" plan "Unlimited" or "Premium". You want to get the customers with deeper pockets who might not run a business.
tl;dr
- Main concerns
- enforceability
- community devlopment dis/incentive
- All apps are the same
- No user limits
- App limits for a more affordable plan
- Unlimited apps for an unlimited plan
Ps. There's a missing space on the pricing page: "All plans include atmost 5 instances of the same app."
atmost --> at most - Main concerns
-
User limits
Since many apps are packaged to have their own user management and thus not bound by the user limits, user limits are not entirely enforceable, cause confusion and dis/advantages users of certain apps. Removing user limits altogether would be a good move.
Premium apps
The advantage is to incentivise users who can likely afford to pay more. In the long run, however, it may stifle community development efforts. Existing apps that are marked premium may receive less development efforts from the community as only Business plan users can use them. Apps yet to come may also see less community help to package and test because of uncertainties on whether they'll become premium. So I would recommend against doing premium apps. Alternatively we at least need clear communications on how new apps will be designated as premium if we're sticking with premium apps.
App limits
It seems limits on the number of apps that a client can run is the only enforceable method that won't inadvertently disincentivise community efforts. And it is easily justifiable that a client pays more for unlimited apps, as (for example) more app installations will likely increase the chance for requiring support from the Cloudron team. Given the choices right now, I would recommend keeping app limits for the "Basic" plan. The "Business" plan, or whatever the top tier plan, still calls for unlimited apps as we don't want to put a ceiling on business opportunities
Naming
Call the "Basic" plan "Standard" or "Essential". It feels better as a customer to pay $15 for something I need rather than some lowly minimum.
Call the "Business" plan "Unlimited" or "Premium". You want to get the customers with deeper pockets who might not run a business.
tl;dr
- Main concerns
- enforceability
- community devlopment dis/incentive
- All apps are the same
- No user limits
- App limits for a more affordable plan
- Unlimited apps for an unlimited plan
Ps. There's a missing space on the pricing page: "All plans include atmost 5 instances of the same app."
atmost --> at most@uiharu said in Premium apps:
it may stifle community development efforts. Existing apps that are marked premium may receive less development efforts from the community as only Business plan users can use them. Apps yet to come may also see less community help to package and test because of uncertainties on whether they'll become premium
In the past there was a contributor edition. So contribute to apps nonetheless and ask for this special status.
- Main concerns
-
Hi, I'm happy to know that there's no number restriction for app anymore!
However, I don't clearly understand how it means.
(but there is still a restriction of more than 5 instances of the same app)
For the first glance, I thought I can have the same 5 apps on 1 Cloudron server instance. (e.g. maximum 5 lamp apps)
On the second thought, I noticed when you say "1 instance" it usually means 1 Cloudron, and 1 Plan for 1 Cloudron Server instance, am I correct?
Then I got confused X( -
@hiyukoim the "5 instances of the same app" limit means that on those plans one can only install the same app five times. However as you have experienced yourself the LAMP app is an exception here, since it solved the app redirect issue before we built this into the platform with the v3 release.
-
@hiyukoim the "5 instances of the same app" limit means that on those plans one can only install the same app five times. However as you have experienced yourself the LAMP app is an exception here, since it solved the app redirect issue before we built this into the platform with the v3 release.
-
Sigh
So you take the best value propositions and hide it behind the most expensive tier.
Please understand that these things are price elastic. I cannot afford to spend this amount per month on hobby projects - I am not a business, but I use Gitlab and Nodebb.Don't steal from your own bright future.
-
Sigh
So you take the best value propositions and hide it behind the most expensive tier.
Please understand that these things are price elastic. I cannot afford to spend this amount per month on hobby projects - I am not a business, but I use Gitlab and Nodebb.Don't steal from your own bright future.
@makemrproper
The Devs have to make real money somehow. If you can't afford to pay $30 for your hobbies, maybe you should try some other options.
For instance, I duplicated my entire Cloudron stack using Docker containers and Docker-Compose, with WatchTower for . Is it as polished? No. Is it as easy to manage? No.
I had never used docker before, and certainly dont program at all. But it is doable in a weekend.
Hell, if you want I can even send you my docker-compose file.If you can't pay $30, I get it, been there. But you should know how important it is for people to be paid for hard work, unique work.
-
I'm wondering if there have been any thoughts after a year and a bit on how this has turned out? For example is $30 the right entry price point? (I'm grandfathered into $15 and wouldn't have joined at $30 fwiw). I'm genuinely curious as it's interesting from a startup pricing perspective.
