71–80 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone seems to be either single Pro user, or Enterprise. Do they really think there is nothing in-between? Just like GitLab. If you have users that might post one or two issues a year you have to pay for them at dev level prices. $240 / year for idle users that barely participate? No thanks. And they have the same tone deaf solution; upgrade to Ultimate. Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality beca…
> Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality because they have unlimited money to work with. Disagree. The issue is that they don’t want cheap users. It lowers your average user value, impacts your valuation, and usually cheap users are the most demanding to support in relation to their revenue. A user that pays $50/year and has 5 questions to support us very different than 5 questions from a user posting…
If the goal is to ignore or be actively hostile towards the bottom 80%, I guess a lot of SaaS companies are succeeding. To me though, they're building poorer quality products that aren't going to capture enough up and coming businesses and the long term impact is going to be a bunch of bloated garbage with a ton of half baked features where everyone is competing for the "enterprise" dollars.
> It lowers your average user value, impacts your valuation
To me, that's what it's really about. It's pump and dump quality SaaS that's built for an IPO, not for the users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality because they have unlimited money to work with. Disagree. The issue is that they don’t want cheap users. It lowers your average user value, impacts your valuation, and usually cheap users are the most demanding to support in relation to their revenue. A user that pays $50/year and has 5 questions to support us very different than 5 questions from a user posting…
The problem is getting those 5000/month accounts if nobody wants to use your product before they get there.
I will be using this, and dropping a lot of my paid AirTable bases...and let me please explain why. Airtable makes it VERY hard to collaborate with people outside my organization. We are a team of 7 people. No longer a scrappy 1-person startup, but not an enterprise client by any-means. If I want to add a single person to an Airtable base, that's $24 a month please. I have one client with 12 people that want to colla…
Because it works for them. I mean, they likely have customers for that $15k plan. And if they do, why would it be worth their time discussing <$24 plans that require extra dev time with you? (I don't mean it as a complaint - just awareness that for-profit companies will do for-profit things)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality because they have unlimited money to work with. Disagree. The issue is that they don’t want cheap users. It lowers your average user value, impacts your valuation, and usually cheap users are the most demanding to support in relation to their revenue. A user that pays $50/year and has 5 questions to support us very different than 5 questions from a user posting…
I see the support excuse all the time, but I don't understand why it needs to be that way and I don't really believe it to be honest. Sell me a small business version that includes per-incident support. If someone has a problem and balks at the idea of paying fair value for the support they need, then I agree they're not worth having as a customer. If the goal is to ignore or be actively hostile towards the bottom 80…
Yes, that is the goal. When an org decides to target primarily enterprise, the whole business model changes. You go from self serve to sales, from support chat to SLAs, etc.
You literally become unable to support small customers cost effectively and they are not worth your time.
Happens a lot in the B2B SaaS space when companies realize how much easier it is to have 10 users for $10,000 than 1000 users for $10. Some companies decide to keep focusing on small businesses and indies, which is great.
Ultimately there’s room for both business models in the world. But as a business, you have to make sure you work with businesses where you are [still] the target market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though they’re already laying the groundwork for “premium” features like admin tools, role based permissions, kanban and calendar views which would be paid subscriptions for self-hosted options too. I always worry that essential features for tools like these will get bumped into one of those paid tiers.
The benefit of having the self hosted always free option is your data isn’t locked into the service. Price is important, but data sovereignty more so imho. If a vendor is no longer meeting your needs, or the deal becomes less fair (you know the whole “raising prices once your business relies on them”), you can export and bounce. More of this chef kiss
You can export and bounce from airtable too, you know.
Even when the service itself does not provide easy export there's often a free third party tool or browser extension to enable data export.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone seems to be either single Pro user, or Enterprise. Do they really think there is nothing in-between? Just like GitLab. If you have users that might post one or two issues a year you have to pay for them at dev level prices. $240 / year for idle users that barely participate? No thanks. And they have the same tone deaf solution; upgrade to Ultimate. Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality beca…
> Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality because they have unlimited money to work with. Disagree. The issue is that they don’t want cheap users. It lowers your average user value, impacts your valuation, and usually cheap users are the most demanding to support in relation to their revenue. A user that pays $50/year and has 5 questions to support us very different than 5 questions from a user posting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone seems to be either single Pro user, or Enterprise. Do they really think there is nothing in-between? Just like GitLab. If you have users that might post one or two issues a year you have to pay for them at dev level prices. $240 / year for idle users that barely participate? No thanks. And they have the same tone deaf solution; upgrade to Ultimate. Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality beca…
> Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality because they have unlimited money to work with. Disagree. The issue is that they don’t want cheap users. It lowers your average user value, impacts your valuation, and usually cheap users are the most demanding to support in relation to their revenue. A user that pays $50/year and has 5 questions to support us very different than 5 questions from a user posting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means that those features have not been created. I agree with you that it has to clearer. We will add a small description what the hourglass icon means soon.
I would just write "coming soon" and make it very clear. a tiny legend is going to be only marginally better, when it should be clear at the expense of slightly fancy looking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Silicon Valley SaaS bros have lost touch with reality because they have unlimited money to work with. Disagree. The issue is that they don’t want cheap users. It lowers your average user value, impacts your valuation, and usually cheap users are the most demanding to support in relation to their revenue. A user that pays $50/year and has 5 questions to support us very different than 5 questions from a user posting…
I see the support excuse all the time, but I don't understand why it needs to be that way and I don't really believe it to be honest. Sell me a small business version that includes per-incident support. If someone has a problem and balks at the idea of paying fair value for the support they need, then I agree they're not worth having as a customer. If the goal is to ignore or be actively hostile towards the bottom 80…
Or maybe you won't. But that's the reason I wouldn't want to do it.
Besides, there's no way you can only access the no-support users. Google, for instance, offers one of these for their email product and are able to make the product free. In their case, they got brand awareness quite fast. But even though Google has Google One in the US if you want paid response, this forum frequently decries the lack of support.
The problem is the users who occupy the no-support space cannot be selected as consumers. When you try to do that, you will get an army of users who want to not pay but who do want support. They think they want no-support but they don't, and they will retroactively rebrand their reasons to be more than money.
That isn't bitterness or anything (I've always dealt with B2B software) but it's the reality of the thing as I can see.