I Pivoted from $150/mo SaaS to a $99 One-Time Self-Hosted Model

The timing of this pivot is interesting. You're reading a market signal most founders miss.

When you said "competing would mean increasing ad spend, constant feature race, fighting marketing noise" — that's not a product problem. That's a signal that the value proposition itself is getting commoditized. Your response wasn't to fight harder in the same game. You changed the game.

On the business model shift:

One-time pricing in AI tools is counterintuitive right now, which is exactly why it works as differentiation. Most AI founders chase MRR because that's what investors value. But you're not raising — you're building a sustainable business. The tradeoff (predictable revenue vs. higher margins and lower churn anxiety) makes sense when you're optimizing for profitability, not growth metrics.

The self-hosted angle is clever positioning:

You're not selling "AI visibility." You're selling control and permanence in a category where SaaS products shut down every quarter. Technical buyers — especially post-2023 AI hype cycle — are tired of tools that disappear after 18 months when the VC money runs out. "Own your stack" is an insurance policy against that.

A few practical considerations:

1. Customer acquisition changes — you're now selling to people who want to self-host, which is a smaller but much more loyal segment. Your CAC should drop significantly because you're not competing with venture-backed competitors on ad spend.

2. The upgrade question — one-time pricing works best when you separate the initial purchase from ongoing value. Consider: core tool = $99 one-time, but templates, integrations, or premium Railway configs = additional purchases. Let customers buy more value without feeling like they're subscribing.

3. Support as a filter — self-hosted customers who can't handle basic setup will churn themselves out before they become support burdens. The ones who succeed are technical enough to solve their own problems. This is a feature, not a bug.

To your questions:

• Would I prefer owning vs monthly? For tools I use daily and that handle sensitive data, absolutely. Subscription fatigue is real.
• Smart positioning? Yes — you're targeting the segment of the market that hates what everyone else is doing. That's a positioning moat.
• Giving up upside? Only if you see "upside" as ARR multiples for an exit. If upside = profit per customer and long-term sustainability, you're gaining it.

The real test: can you acquire customers profitably at $99? If yes, you've solved the hardest part of SaaS — CAC/LTV — by just changing the business model.

This is a smart read of the market.

On the tradeoff:
You're exchanging predictable MRR for lower CAC and clearer differentiation. In a crowded AI space, "own the stack" is a positioning moat that subscription competitors can't easily copy. You're competing on business model, not features.

A few observations:

1. $99 feels underpriced — if your target is technical users who value ownership and control, they'll pay more for something they deploy themselves. $149-$199 wouldn't scare off the same buyer. Test it.

2. Support liability shifts — with SaaS, you own the infra and can debug. With self-hosted, users will still email you when their Railway breaks. Consider a paid support tier or community Discord to offset this.

3. Upgrade path? — one-time works for V1, but what happens when you ship V2? Do existing buyers get it free? Paid upgrade? This is the hardest part of one-time pricing in fast-moving categories.

To answer your questions:

• Owning vs monthly? For AI tools that touch my data or require API keys, I'd rather own.
• Smart positioning? Yes — especially if you target technical founders who distrust VC-funded SaaS longevity.
• Giving up upside? Only if you don't add a complementary revenue stream later (premium support, templates, consulting).

Good luck with the pivot. The "infra is cheap, architecture is valuable" framing is strong.