Hi Indie Hackers!
I'm working on building out a library of pricing pages, and I'm looking for some more complex use cases. I'd love to see the kinds of pricing models you all offer. Drop a link in the comments👇
I've recently switched my pricing to per usage model.
On the one hand, it looks complex.
But on the other hand, I saw lots of people who know how everything works, and they were complaining that my price-per-monthly-subscription model is way too pricy.
The very big benefit of price-per-usage is that it scales very easily.
Btw, Digital Ocean has the same - the more you buy, the more you pay.
Both DO and AWS have a price per usage model, but AWS is much harder to understand.
I agree with @anilkilic - you've done a great job with making your pricing easy to understand @Akcium! What made you go for a slider instead of a table?
If by "table" you mean subscription plan, then it's not scalable and I didn't like the idea of messing with different plans. For example, some people say they need 1 site to monitor. Then I'll need to have a plan for 1 site. Some people need 2, some 5, some 50. Big companies need 100-200.
Plus it's easier to control the income/revenue: the more sites I check, the more money I get.
haha @anilkilic I've heard this 3 times today so far. Besides AWS, are there any other usage-based, or even graduated/volume pricing plans that you've come across?
I gotta go with Intercom to be honest, so confusing.
Oof @FarouqAldori yeah gotten this as well today. What do you find most confusing about it?
Different "plans", a bunch of add-ons, different tiers on each plan, and finally the way they count active users is skewed.
VC effect!!!
Seconding Intercom. I also find Hubspot's pricing confusing and irritating. Also Mailchimp's is annoying.
Sendgrid, on their free marketing plan I had automations but on their lower paid plan they don't have them.
Plus I also have to pay for their email api.
This comment was deleted 3 years ago.
I've recently switched my pricing to per usage model.
On the one hand, it looks complex.
But on the other hand, I saw lots of people who know how everything works, and they were complaining that my price-per-monthly-subscription model is way too pricy.
The very big benefit of price-per-usage is that it scales very easily.
Btw, Digital Ocean has the same - the more you buy, the more you pay.
Both DO and AWS have a price per usage model, but AWS is much harder to understand.
Their pricing is pretty straightforward to understand. The hard part is measuring/calculating what you will consume.
Example: it costs money to query an S3 bucket. I use the Transmit app to browse my buckets and I have no clue what it does under the hood.
This comment was deleted 3 years ago.
I agree with @anilkilic - you've done a great job with making your pricing easy to understand @Akcium! What made you go for a slider instead of a table?
If by "table" you mean subscription plan, then it's not scalable and I didn't like the idea of messing with different plans. For example, some people say they need 1 site to monitor. Then I'll need to have a plan for 1 site. Some people need 2, some 5, some 50. Big companies need 100-200.
Plus it's easier to control the income/revenue: the more sites I check, the more money I get.
I meant table comparison vs calculator, but yeah that definitely makes sense
Fully agree. That's why I use Digital ocean.
haha @anilkilic I've heard this 3 times today so far. Besides AWS, are there any other usage-based, or even graduated/volume pricing plans that you've come across?
This comment was deleted 3 years ago.
Ah yes I'm very familiar with their pricing