This is true for paid services too. My team is working to offer a service which allows people to create a feed of images, and we’re all fairly worried about what we’re going to see uploaded.
We’ve all worked on social websites (including Facebook) and we’ve all seen what users are capable of uploading.
One of our internal initiatives is improving our ability to find this stuff and remove it without having to actually engage and look at it regularly. Ugh. Offering any kind of storage at all, free or paid, comes with some risks.
Most MBA programs go over why you don’t want a small number of high paying clients. It’s the opposite of diversification and is a risk factor. In the situation they claim as bad losing 1 clients means losing 10% of your revenue!
I think this isn’t arguing that you should aim to have 10 (or 1!) high/paying clients, but rather that it is better to have 100 (or 1000) medium-paying clients than 10,000 (or 1,000,000) low-paying (or free) clients, because you are likely to underestimate the marginal cost of a single client, and at higher rates, this marginal cost is more significant. If you have 100 medium-paying clients then losing 1 is not such a big hit to revenue. If you have some kind of dynamic pricing, it seems reasonably likely that you’ll get a power law for how much clients pay, and you’ll be worried about the biggest client leaving even if you have lots of others.
Yeah, but that logic is really for the very small number of clients on a very high revenue per client.
I think the example in the article used such low numbers to make the calculation easier. In most cases, the kind of SAAS they are talking about would have at least one or two orders of magnitude more users.
Reshaping the question: would you rather have 50,000 users paying $1 or 1,000 paying $50 each? your MBA caveat largely becomes moot.
That’s only part of the picture though. Customer service is expensive, and I’m sure those MBA programs you speak of acquaint students with the practice of a cost:benefit analysis.
I would also point out your logic about his revenue stream comparison falls apart when you double the numbers to 2,000 vs 20 customers.
Since this headline is likely to have a decent amount of people reading comments and not the article, I just want to highlight their suggestion of a "lifetime try-out plan". It's a pretty original thought, I don't think I've ever seen a SaaS use that.
I have seen trial plans with a small $ attached before though.
Though combining a paid "lifetime" plan with the deactivation of inactive accounts as the article suggests seems like a bad idea. That's deceptive in my book.
Sublime text has this:
"Sublime Text may be downloaded and evaluated for free, however a license must be purchased for continued use. There is currently no enforced time limit for the evaluation."
Alternately — if you have a free plan, make sure you get something out of it. My app SongRender [1] offers unlimited free videos, with the caveat that each of them has a small watermark in the corner. So if someone isn't paying me, they're helping me with marketing.
Really makes me reflect on how offering free content destroyed the web via advertising. If only they’d got this message out 20+ years ago, maybe I wouldn’t hate so much of the internet.
This is a great movement, and I hope it gets some traction. A lot of damage has been caused by setting an expectation for software consumers that they should never have to pay for anything.
I agree, free has extremely devalued software. I think though, refactoring his idea, a “trial subscription” for whatever, 3, 6, 12 months at a sweet price with the option to continue at the regular price.
I think author’s opinion about subscription fatigue is low-end market thinking or B2C. Most businesses actually making money are used to the subscription model now, Gsuite, Office 365, Adobe Creative Suite, NetSuite, etc. The trick there is to reduce the risk for them to try it on. Unless you want to pay an army of salespeople.
I think the "free" attention economy is what pushes software developer compensation so high. So maybe it's true that it's damaged the wholesome place the internet could have been, but I doubt it's damaged you or me as producers of software.
Consider the wages paid to tradespeople who make useful, non hyperscale products. Or even the salary differential between fields of computer work (web vs embedded, for example).
It is sad but true that users that pay less, or zero, are more demanding on customer support and make unreasonable demands via social. Had a guy this week using our free product that has 90% of the paid products features berating us on Twitter for not being 100% free and demanding we convert and rely on donations to support our 40 person team. Makes me regret having a free offering. In my 20 years doing software startups I’ve seen this over and over. Simply raising your prices, which we’ve raised to over 5x, dramatically reduces load on the CS team per dollar earned.
My guess is part (not all) of this is due to people assuming that free offerings are already generating revenue in some fashion other than a direct payment (e.g., advertising for Google/Facebook), and thus they're still helping your business and entitled to support as much as anybody.
Whether the assumption is right or wrong for each business, it's not hard to see how we've gotten here.
This is correct in my experience. It also cuts deeper than just advertising or selling user data. It's the classic exposure argument. Give me the service for free and someone else might pay for it who hears about the service through my social network.
As discussed elsewhere in this thread, this line of thinking can even be completely reasonable for various services that have low costs associated with the free offering. It's when the free offering costs a significant amount to operate that you start running into trouble.
> Does everyone think most businesses are somehow ad supported?
Not necessarily ads, but they might assume most businesses will monetize whatever info they get their hands on however they can. Especially so for free offerings ("you are the product" etc.).
Nah, that behaviour has been around since before this millennium. They don't actual want it for everybody but they think they might get a better response if they look less self oriented.
"do what I want/need, not just for me you understand, but for the community"
The article says, "Counter-intuitively, the less the user pays the more likely they are to need your help", but that's not so counter-intuitive if you invert it.
Cheap users tend to be inexpert users. Expert users who really value your offering enough to pay more are those who understand why it's worth the money. They likely understand the problem or use that your work addresses, and they have enough knowledge to know which knobs to turn to use your product and be aware of the limits of what it can and should do.
A cheap user is more likely to be one who isn't very savvy, doesn't understand the scope and limitations of your product, and thus thinks it should solve more problems than it does, or to put it another way, 'be a dessert topping AND a floor wax'
Oddly, shellac is both a desert topping—it's sometimes used to make chocolates shiny—and a floor wax. Sorry for the tangent, I had to look this up, and was surprised.
It's funny that you mention experts use less support.
I work for an amazon subsidiary. We have free unlimited aws enterprise support. It's like pulling teeth for me to get our engineers to engage enterprise support. We know they have a ton of experience with triaging various aws tools and usage. Again we pay nothing for it, but one might consider we pay a massive amount for it as well. But we think we are experts on every system we touch.
Many of our issues would have been solved N days faster if we had just reached out to them immediately.
I would say we greatly over index on not bothering support.
Also once you deal with medium to large companies they will have an internal support team solve a lot of minor issues before it ever gets escalated to you.
Apart from those (I could name some medium and large financial services companies the following supplies to, but won't for obvious reasons) who officially have their own first-line support (and even try demand a per seat discount on that basis) but that support is useless: their idea of providing support is simply forwarding emails to us, no triage, no collation, no digging for extra information. Heck, sometimes they are worse than useless and make things worse, like not passing on some of the information the end user _did_ think to provide.
Not all are like this if course. But the proportion who are terrible is higher than you'd like.
I guess that is possible, I am only working with anecdotal evidence here. I have only ever seen the case where internal support handles most issues and less than a handful needs to be escalated to the vendor each year.
That is certainly how it should work, and in many cases it does.
We've had a couple on the dark side though. Perhaps because we are "too helpful" and actually, respond instead of forwarding on the support procedures documentation or pointing at the contract and coughing! Give 'em an inch, they'll take a foot, and before you know it you won't have a leg to stand on...
Expertise and company size aren't related, though, and I didn't mention it. There are ranges of expertise across large and small companies. Above a certain size, businesses are subject to the pathologies of the corporate world and can become real stinkers despite having money and (possibly sidelined) expertise.
>Had a guy this week using our free product that has 90% of the paid products features berating us on Twitter for not being 100% free and demanding we convert and rely on donations to support our 40 person team.
If there's any consolation, people like this have near zero impact on the actual sales. Reasonable customers who research reviews are used to filtering out nutty feedback. So all you get is megabytes of virtual outrage from people that would have never bought your product in the first place.
I don't have any way of knowing how rational this is without running more experiments, but when I'm down to final selection between a few products, I search for "<product> sucks" on Google.
If the results seem fairly rational, I may have second thoughts about going that way. If the negative reviews come from people who seem unhinged, then the fact that they bubbled to the top is a good indication that only nutbars hate the project.
Call it hyperloglog as applied to counterarguments for a product.
The article is missing out a huge argument in favour of free plans: the opportunity to generate data. This doesn’t even need to be done in a shady manner - imagine analysing what users usually type in free form boxes, normalise that and build a tag hierarchy, for example. There’s a billion way to make a free plan useful - it’s not just a curtesy to your users!
Nah. I had a million installs of a web widget and was drowning in data doing over a billion impressions a month and we had to pivot or starve to death. Nice idea but not true in my experience unless you already have customers lined up and are intentional about what you launch in order to generate the specific data they are hungry for.
Yeah, I've worked at places with millions of users and product managers are drowning in data. It honestly doesn't really make it much easier to build features that actually drive revenue.
To a large extent, this is why advertising (and related data selling) is so widespread: because it is obvious how to make money from the data. Someone said they'll give you $1,000 for a list of all the users who are male, in Canada, and have typed in stuff about Python.
The parent's example about tag hierarchies... That sounds like exactly the kind of nifty feature I've seen launch a dozen times that has precisely zero impact on revenue.
Fair point, although I wasn't referring to simply hoarding every data point you can get but specifically _using_ free users to improve your data set. Obviously this isn't a viable option for everyone.
Take a look at Google for a great example of this: Their "local guide" feature on Google Maps is using gamification to improve location data by convincing users to work for free; or Recaptcha using user input to train their machine learning models.
The problem is that free users aren't a representative sample of people who'll pay. I remember a 37signals post that mentioned how something like 90% of their paying users were designers, but that was only 5% of their free users. If you optimize on a sample that's structurally bad, no matter how large it is, you'll end up building the wrong thing.
Have you (or anyone else here) done that and succeeded at it? I can see why one would assume it could somehow be useful, but in the absence of someone accomplishing it I’m skeptical.
I'm actually doing that currently. We have a large database of company records compiled from different sources. Naturally, some of those records are duplicates. We have cleaned the data as much as it was possible using algorithmic approaches, but that only gets you so far.
To go the last mile, we added widgets to the pages showing similar records where users may click "same company" or "other company". Poll results are aggregated and values above a certain threshold create an entry in a verification queue for our staff to look at.
This works out surprisingly well for now.
I’m glad it’s working well for your use case, especially with the final expert evaluation.
What it makes me think of is genealogy, part of which can be thought of as the process of assigning records (birth, marriage, death, census, etc) to entities (natural persons). These are complex determinations requiring understanding and correlating multiple records, and analyzing them in terms of information which is not explicit in the records (eg, knowing about relevant place names, name changes, etc). In the case of businesses, imagine trying to figure out the connection or lack of connection between the many Ray’s Pizza shops in New York City, as they open, close, and change names, locations, and owners over time.
Anecdata: Trello and Jira both have free plans that I used that caused me to recommend them for paid usage at multiple companies I’ve worked with. Those free plans resulted in $xx-$xxxx monthly subscriptions.
Asana has a paid plan with a 5-user minimum limit. I never bothered to even try it since I wouldn’t have the extended time to play with it. As a result it never even got mentioned to companies I’ve worked with.
So, it’s important to have a free plan (or at least very cheap paid plan as the article recommended) for “influencers” to get heavily involved with.
My experience is that I rarely have enough time to determine if I really like the service or if it's still just a shiny new tool to play with. I need more than 14-30 days to actually put in the work to understand a reasonably complex tool (say a CRM system) well enough to make a commercial recommendation.
Obviously this issue doesn't apply to all SaaS companies but it's probably common enough to be worthy of consideration.
There's also the case of services which will only do (or strongly guide you to) the highest level subscription for the trial period without obvious indicators for which option you see is available in lower tiers. Sure, you can dig through the features table linked from the pricing pages, but that's unnecessary effort.
both examples given specifically have free plans, not just trial periods. A trial period is useful for specific evaluation, but not for having experience with a tool and recommending it on that basis.
Time is not free. If it's too expensive that I won't use it for my own projects, I'm not going to even bother with a free trial. Same if you don't tell me your price up front, I'm not going to bother with the free trial. Tools that will get recommended at my workplace are more likely to be the ones that I use for my own side projects, since I already know them and they will allow me to move fast. And the tools I use at home are more likely to be the free/cheap ones than the expensive ones.
Of course specifics and circumstances matters. If a tool is critical for the business then we will review everything in depth and pick the best, regardless of trial/free plan/etc. And of course, sometimes the critical task is simply to ship ASAP...
I, personally, rarely use a trial period for anything I’m testing for the long term. It’s not worth integrating it into my day to day if I may have to pay more then I want.
BUT, I do think it’s important to offer a free level for a lot of simple services to get people hooked. Costco does it, and it works for a lot of software.
I feel like free plans work best for products with a business/enterprise side:
- where free users are an onramp for getting $x,xxx/mo-$xx,xxx/mo contracts with companies.
- where many, many free users are subsidized every time a company signs up.
Trello/Jira/Asana seem to fall pretty firmly into that territory.
On the other hand, those running SaaS with fairly low per-month subscription value (e.g. $99-150/mo, as a lot of smaller or bootstrapped SaaSes seem to charge [1]) wouldn't necessarily get much value from these users.
Trello is a service I would probably pay for (before purchase by Atlassian, now don't trust) but never have because the free tier covers my needs adequately.
For me free plans work best for products that other products can be built on top of, because if I think I am going to build a product I want to have enough of a free tier that I can build the service and when I start having to pay for it I will have enough progress to know that it is worth investing money as well as time in it. Basically when I start paying for a service like that I want to have my product in release and at least a customer or two.
Agreed. I think free tier user limits (where appropriate) are much better than trial periods for evaluation. I'm busy, and if it's not mission critical, evaluating this piece of software may not be the only thing on my to-do list; I may hardly get around to it in 2 weeks.
Agreed. It may also contribute to additional competitor comparisons. If I only have two weeks to evaluate something, I'm likely going to be much more thorough with competitive analysis in that time period.
On the other hand, if I have unlimited time then I will likely start with a pretty broad look at the available competitors and then once I've signed up for what appears to be the best option, I'll only look into competitors as I hit roadblocks.
I think trials can be improved for services where you can discern whether the user is directly interacting with it. You give them 100 days of usage, and then decrement a counter when they interact with the site the first time each day.
BeyondCompare does this and I've been slowing decrementing my 30 day usage trial for almost a year. I'm likely going to buy when it gets near zero but I use it so infrequently it just hasn't caused justification to purchase. But if it wasn't for this extended usage decrement counter id have likely just gone with something else after 30 day trial of using it but 1 day
Used beyond compare heavily at a previous company... when I got to amazon I immediately expensed it. I use it about 30-50 times a year but it's definitely worth a buck each time I need it.
Tangent, but BeyondCompare is one of the few tools I'm proud to have purchased. I use it all the time for file and folder diff. It has been invaluable for me and my work on both Windows and macOS.
This would be great. I never bought AudioMulch back in the day because I installed the free trial, forgot about it, then when I was ready to evaluate it it started blaring incredibly loud voice messages saying "It's time to pay." I immediately closed and uninstalled it.
Similarly, I work in industries with fairly expensive software. Off and on they'll offer free, limited educational versions. When a new version comes out I'll often dabble with it at home if there's a free version available--there have been times where it wasn't offered, so I didn't. Often, it's new or updated features. Because my day to day work is getting things done I'm less likely to risk a new and untested approach and we stick with older software versions until we have to.
Without a free version I'm less likely to try out a new version or deviate as much as I would if there's not a clear benefit. It makes the software stickier (assuming they did improve it).
ALWAYS have a lifetime free plan. It's okay to make it a useless lifetime free plan (your data disappears every 2 weeks; you have a 3 email per day quota; etc.). It just need to be enough to seriously evaluate your product, and if it has APIs, to develop to them. There are sometimes good reasons to do more, and sometimes not. But that's the minimum.
In the early days of AWS, I would build thing on AWS' free tier, and they turned into products later. One product is making AWS millions (literally). AWS lost out when I changed orgs, my one-year free tier quota was gone, and I couldn't do the same at future orgs.
At big organizations, the overhead of a PO is sufficient that you don't do it unless you have a compelling business case. Free plan allows you to build a business case over a weekend.
I've gone free->paid many times.
It's worth noting the figures here. The case for a free plan is much more compelling for a Fortune 500 company who will sign a million-dollar contract than for a small business.
- If I need the service and only intend to use it for a very small project, I love forever free plans. Because I know I can subscribe use your server time and forget my account forever. I often subscribe with a temp email so that I don't even receive your emails anymore.
- If I seriously need the service and is ready to pay for it, I don't really care about the free forever plan vs free trial vs paid trial.
As a business:
- Any time I have offered a free forever plan, basically 95% of the created accounts are dormant free accounts (like I personally am when I find the correct tool to scratch my itch). 4% are from people (usually from south east asia) creating hundreds/thousands of accounts (sometimes manually !) to circumvent the free plan limitations instead of just paying for the service. And 1% are from legitimate users/customers.
- People in the 95 and 4% categories still believe they are owed support. And if you don't give them an easy way to let them contact you, they now have twitter and facebook and business reviews websites to get to you. On top of emails, LinkedIn messages and yes, phone calls.
- Cutting the free accounts has almost no impact on real customers acquisition. You can let people experience your product with a temporary trial, that includes support and way more features, but behind the credit card screen. Extend the free trial as much as needed if people ask for it through your usual support channel. You will still get abusers but those are easier to detect, because they need to provide some payment details which are harder to fake, and after you shut them down for the third time in a row, they usually go away.
> Any time I have offered a free forever plan, basically 95% of the created accounts are dormant free accounts (like I personally am when I find the correct tool to scratch my itch).
What's the issue? Unused account shouldn't be a big spending. If it become one, take a bit of time to change it a bit (delete data/stop service after a set amount of inactivity) and use that occasion to send them an email that remind them that your service exist.
How do you feel about a free-forever plan behind a credit card screen?
Google Cloud is this way: stay below their free usage limits for some services and you'll never need to pay; but you need to give them your card up-front because it's a post-paid service and they need to ensure they can charge you if-and-when you do go over those limits.
Or, for another approach: how about a plan that's free, but where there's a small one-time fee on signup, regardless of the plan you choose? (You can be upfront to your users and tell them it's a KYC measure, if you like.)
Or, how about a free service, but gated with a real KYC/AML process on signup (of the "sign in through your bank" or "upload your driver's license to this third party" variety.)
Any of these approaches, IMHO, would filter out the 4% of spammers; and also act as a barrier to anyone who isn't serious about eventually trying the service — while not being as much of a barrier to people like the GP poster, who take five months to get around to testing a service before becoming a diehard fan of it, and don't want to be paying for those five months, but also look in apprehension at the idea of possibly having to spend time trying to get their (as-yet-unused) trial extended.
This might work in a B2B relationship but as an individual, there is no site on earth that is getting me to give you my bank account or driver's license info as part of a "free" or "trial" plan.
Maybe. MAYBE. I'll give you a credit card number since I know I can always dispute/chargeback if you turn out to be dishonest. No way do you get anything that can't be 100% undone within a few minutes.
> give you my bank account or driver's license info as part of a "free" or "trial" plan.
Re: bank accounts, nobody was suggesting that, that's not how KYC systems work. Re: driver's license info, that's not quite how (well-implemented, modern) KYC flows work, either.
For "signing up using your bank", I wasn't talking about giving the service a photo of a void cheque or anything; I was talking about doing Single Sign-On into the service, with your bank acting as the SSO (usually SAML) provider, through a SAML broker.
I don't know if this is common anywhere else, but in Canada we have a pretty popular SAML SSO broker doing this (https://securekey.com/) ; it allows you to use all our major banks as SSO authentication agents (works with both web and mobile-app flows); and this SSO method is in use for many government sites (e.g. it's how you log in to file your taxes, pay federal student loans, etc.) Any (Canadian) business can actually add SSO to their site/app through this broker. And, just like with any other (good) SSO method, the app being signed into through the SSO broker doesn't receive your credentials.
Re: driver's license info, with regular KYC flows, you don't upload your driver's license info to the first party. Instead, you're directed to a trusted neutral third party (the KYC/AML provider), who has their own app; you give your credentials to that service, through its own app, which is essentially the account-creation flow for your account with that service; and then the first-party service you were interacting with SSOs you through the KYC service as an OAuth/OIDC flow.
I'm not familiar enough with SSO flows to be able to quantify any kind of risk, but it makes me very uneasy when things interconnect with my bank. Everything always seems secure until it isn't.
I don't mean to spread FUD, it just seems needlessly risky to make banks the central point of auth.
In theory, the bank is really incentivized to provide proper and secure authentication (if someone can impersonate you to your bank, you're kinda screwed anyway). So, it only makes sense to trust a bank to provide the authentication service. One should realize that SSO integration with a bank doesn't mean 3rd party has any sort of access to the bank - it' just means that you authorize your bank to tell a 3rd party "yes, I believe this is really curryst"). Doesn't increase the attack surface for you - it only increases the "blast radius" if someone successfully compromises your bank account. But that one is typically already a dire situation.
> I was talking about doing Single Sign-On into the service, with your bank acting as the SSO (usually SAML) provider
Personally, I use my bank only for banking and would never ever consider using them as an SSO provider. They handle my money, I don't want them to handle anything else or have any more information about me than they already do. Also, in my personal experience, the banks aren't very technologically competent, so the less they are expected to do, the better.
What's your use case for the "one time fee"? Is this a barrier to prevent bad actors?
I can easily see use cases where someone without buying power can get a 50, maybe even 100 USD bond or 'license' of some sort PROVIDED that there's either only one or even more ideally a set of competitors who's "not a bad actor" licenses are interoperable; and work on the whole Internet for that task (without expiring until bad karma is dinged).
However no, nickle and dime-d to death, as well as those 'free but remember to cancel' plans, are the exact reason I'd never hand over real billing info until I'm serious about being billed.
The one-time fee is an e-stamp, basically. It makes having N identities N times as expensive as having one. It's one of the oldest anti-spam suggestions, from before spam filters were invented.
What you're talking about with that "license" is exactly what you get by everybody relying on a small set of KYC providers; except that the KYC provider doesn't charge you for registration, but instead requires a Proof-of-Stake in some state's legal system (i.e. a set of documents that require laborious up-front proofs to acquire, such that it's very hard to acquire two sets of them, but which can be used to validate identity freely once issued.)
KYC providers that just charge $100 instead of requiring a Proof-of-Stake challenge exist, too. That's essentially the (secondary?) purpose of businesses that will only trade with other incorporated businesses (or, to abstract that away, only with businesses that have a Dun & Bradstreet DUNS number): it costs $100 to incorporate, or to register one of those numbers, so you have to be at least $100 of serious to bother them, and you can't just keep spending hundred-dollar-bills forever to keep generating new identities to DDoS someone.
What I haven't heard of, interestingly, is a KYC provider that requires a proof of work. Something like "solve a thousand Captchas to create an account." Or a formalized version of the old "take a photo of yourself holding up today's newspaper." But that'd be totally workable as well.
I treat 'free but remember to cancel' plans as scams.
About 10 months ago I got emails from a company that developed an development environment that was I was mildly interested in. They presented an offer with said it was free so that people could help educate themselves during lockdown. Unfortunately the terms was after 1 year you needed to pay something like $1500 if you didn't cancel, these terms were right at the bottom of the page and very hard to spot. Paid through PayPal and the about $1500 was there right in front of me. I cancelled it on the same day.
A company offering that sort of deal waiting for people not to cancel and saying it is to help people during the lockdowns is just awful.
This sounds like a case of a free plan makes sense when the target for the free plan is someone without purchasing authority looking for leverage.
> Would you rather have 10 users that pay $100 monthly, or 1,000 users that pay $1?
I think this question is meant as an illustration but perhaps it hints at a rule of thumb. Let me substitute a different question and see what you think:
Do you want 1000 users paying $500 a month, or 5 million users paying a $1 a month?
5 million suggests a broad but shallow appeal to the app, and I don't doubt at all that the author has seen customers exhibit all of the listed behaviors - and more. But perhaps an application with a narrow but deep appeal makes sense with a free tier. You can always expand the appeal of your product to reach more markets once you have a proven track record and word of mouth working for you.
I would also say that at a minimum, if you don't let people test drive your application, you have to be quite skilled at creating demos and walkthroughs, and encourage third parties to do the same. Growing that kind of talent in house is probably too slow and unreliable. You're going to have to pay for at least one person to give you good advice.
> This sounds like a case of a free plan makes sense when the target for the free plan is someone without purchasing authority looking for leverage.
Well, that. Or somebody with leverage trying to reduce risks before jumping into a platform. Or somebody evaluating the options before deciding. Or somebody just making something the quickest way possible, leaving slow decisions for later...
There are many cases that fit the same sequence. They do impose different requirements on the free tier, but I don't think you'll ever measure them well enough to discover what is what.
> Or somebody evaluating the options before deciding. Or somebody just making something the quickest way possible, leaving slow decisions for later...
This is exactly it. I've been both with and without purchasing authority.
WITH purchasing authority, at many organizations, I still need paperwork and approvals. To give an extreme example, try working for an EU government agency....
My patterns definitely fit the ones described. 95% of the time, I create an account, and nothing comes of it:
* I try five tools, and pick one.
* I try five tools, and pick zero.
* I do a weekend hackathon, and there is no business case
* I do a weekend hackathon, there is a business case, but yours isn't the right product
... etc.
But 5% of the time, there's a conversion, and with big orgs, quite often a big $$$ conversion. Those 95% cost you nearly nothing, or act as discovery (I rarely make a support call, but if I do make one, it's valuable to you).
As a footnote, in many industries, you give actual, physical products which cost $$$ for free (e.g. an IC) for this reason. Some of these do put up gateways to make sure I'm from a place which might go from 1 sample to buying 10,000 (or an ed institution). I don't think those are a good fit, but I do think it's possible (and not too difficult) to screen out abuse in most cases.
... assuming I never work on another project again, switch jobs, or fail to get around to evaluating your tool during the two weeks.
I've exhausted enough 2-week trials to know.
And at the same time, I'm hesitant to start them, since once they're gone, they're gone. You want minimal friction. Two clicks, and I'm using your tool. Yes, lower friction decreases your conversion rate, but that's because more people who aren't sure will try your tool.
Hi, author of the page here. I didn't expect this to end up so high on HN.
You're right that there is a place for free plans, the article I wrote is probably too one-sided. I planned on adding an extra section near the end for some cases when a free plan does make sense (I will wait until it is no longer discussed here).
Other than the "influencer" angle you mentioned, it also makes sense for products where you can offer the first X units for free, and many will have the desire for more (2 free designs for a website builder, or the first 10 levels free in a video game).
It depends on what the service costs to run. I really don't like a model where one customer pays for the other but promoting a new service is getting more expensive every year. It might be worth the insanity of large numbers of low tier customers.
One thing is for sure, no one likes a service that changes prices with free > paid being the least likable. (paid > free as the nr 2?)
I think you can get away by describing the situation properly in advance. i.e. what might happen with the free service in the future. Something like: Guaranteed to be free for 6 months (12 months if you register now). If we fail to reach an audience by offering a free plan it will be x dollar per month/year/query. We will contact you 3 months in advance.
It seems the free pony! era has to end. Downtime from cleaning up after a vanishing free service is to annoying.
The examples of Trello and Jira are specifically problematic, because their history says otherwise: Jira built its considerable market share and brand awareness without a free plan of any kind, offering instead just a short-term trial license; I remember just a few years ago that the price of admission was thousands of dollars per server, and yet here it is. And Trello comes from the other direction, having been entirely free of charge at launch and only latterly monetizing.
The broader problem with this example is that the companies in question evidently don't value information, and have instead relied on personal hubris, which speaking as a longtime service provider is itself a red flag for "problem customer", and if not quite the horrors depicted in the article then certainly on that spectrum.
All of which illustrates that talking to anyone who self-describes as an "influencer" is generally a net negative, unless you're in the FMCG category. Influencers demanding freebies is something to be abhorred, and there is no equivalence here to seeking high quality professional advice.
I read the "influencer" in original post as descriptive not prescriptive.
> the companies in question evidently don't value information, and have instead relied on personal hubris
Nothing in the post indicated hubris to me. "I have used this service before and can give you an estimation of how well it fits our usecase" is probably the best information about a service you can get. The alternative is to spend time and money to discover that yourself.
Claiming that you are personally responsible for Jira and Trello's marketing cut-through is sheer hubris.
And furthermore:
> The alternative is to spend time and money to discover that yourself
That's not an "alternative", that is simply professional consulting behaviour. Making the recommendation whilst declining to invest in the quality of that recommendation is hubris. And I'll double down by adding that "influencers" demanding freebies is downright obnoxious hubris. In the last few years, some segment of the tech community has normalized this behaviour as somehow acceptable and rational, but in practice it's as toxic as the article suggests.
Noticing that due to time/money constraints familiar tech with a free testing plan gets better chances of accepting is not the same as demanding freebies. If you have time and money to do a full review of every alternative available, go for it - don't forget to add training / new tech implementation to the budget. If you're in a "we need something that we know can do X now" position, you'll likely get a recommendation from people experienced with X.
I've also got a number of solutions that just solve the problem at reasonable price. My recommendation in those categories will be "X can do it; have you got specific requirements that X doesn't match? if not, I can implement it with X and we can review that in months/years".
This simply confirms an assertion that low-quality advice is sought by companies that do not value advice, i.e. that their willingness-to-pay for information is low to nil.
Somewhat tautological perhaps, but also, thereby, not a compelling reason to offer a free plan, nor to be proud of being glib.
In addition highlighting that any comparison between an influencer and a consultant depends on false equivalence, which is why I don't consider them part of a product ecosystem (esp. when compared with ISVs, VARs and MSPs), or a substitute for thoughtful, professional advisors.
I run a business that competes with those companies you mentioned, it's called Portabella (https://portabella.io), an end-to-end encrypted and privacy friendly alternative.
We have a free plan that basically locks you down collaboration wise (limits inviting anyone to your projects).
We haven't had many people convert yet (https://portabella.io/open) but I'm starting to think it'd be better to offer no free plan but a 7 day free trial
my anecdotal experience is similar, there's quite a few products we use because we started with the free plan, and now pay for the product. One of the big problems over the last few years is we have ended up with a LOT of useless subscriptions (often cheap ones) sitting there doing nothing for a long time, so it gets tricky, people want to have conversations about what we will be getting out of a new subscription to a product before we have started to use it in any meaningful way ( there's a lot we try out and abandon ), even when cheap, the ones we integrate, its a no brainer paying for or bumping up to the next tier as we use it more.
I used to offer a free plan on https://pdf2qrcode.com but not anymore since it costs to have free users and I did not see any conversions into a paid plan. Replaced with a 60 day free trial and it gets the job done.
Jira is one of those products, but an even bigger one (I think?) that I've seen in multiple places is Slack. I don't know if my experience is universal, but in multiple workplaces I've been at, people started using Slack (the free plan) as a grassroots / from the trenches / heck trying to get corporate approval movement; they just started using it and it spread among people, until at some point it gained critical mass, the limits became annoying, and they finally get leadership buy-in.
If you use it as a full project management tool it can be a bit painful, but is there a better tool you’d recommend for someone who just wants a good bug tracker?
You can't just tell, I've used the product for free and I've recommended the product to paying customers so that it's worth it.
How much do you cost the company by using the software for free? How much cost the thousands of users that use the product for free and don't recommend it to paying users?
Free plan doesn't have a one sided answer. Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes it is not. Would Salesforce benefit from having a fee plan? This is not obvious to me
I can tell you that AWS free tier in my case didn’t “convert” from their metric perspective, but they turned into commercial accounts that generated $5-6M for my customers that early adopted.
I can think of a lot of other paid SaaS stuff (Trello, Basecamp, Dropbox come to mind) where that free plan translated into real revenue. For work stuff, the effort to spend $500 is as much as $5M.
One concept I like is the Premium plan that gives lifetime
access to all features but only updates for one year. It can act
as both the old-school software purchase or subscription
depending on what the user prefers.
I don’t think this model aligns the incentives particularly well. If a business does a great job creating a piece of long-lived reliable software, they get punished by infrequent updates. If they ship a good-but-not-great product with some lock-in, need for frequent updates and an ecosystem of backwards-incompatible plugins and formats, then they get rewarded because you’ll end up buying it again next year.
That works for standalone/installable software but not for hosted/cloud-based services as keeping every version running alongside each other forever would be a nightmare!
I wrote a piece about power users recently that gained some notice on HN a little over a week ago. It seems to fit in the same mindset as this, except written from the power user’s perspective: https://tedium.co/2021/01/27/power-users-history/
This honestly feels like my argument written from the perspective of the product maker. I hope we meet in the middle on this subject, because it seems like there’s some good overlap to be had. Good tools should not just be built for free because that’s how we’ve always done it. Make everyone happy.
There's a very simple reason companies like Google treat users like crap and kill good products: growth rate. Google & co's business models revolve not around meticulously building and charging for great products (classic business model) but controlling Internet marketshare. The more users reliant on them, the more money they make. Quality be damned, all they want is a bigger DAU metric. Good, maintained products? Customer service? Heck with it. That's not their business.
How did it come to this? Well, at least in the short term, this kind of business busts up traditional high-quality paid tools. If a Google-like business enters a market where a high-quality paid competitor exists, they will subsidize something similar with VC money and suck users away, bankrupting the competitor. Then, with the power they have gained they are free to focus on monetizing their users, which is a story for another time.
This is especially made easier by the fact that it is really difficult to get paid on the Internet: you are essentially selling access to information, not a physical good (all of this might not apply to businesses rooted in the physical world like Amazon and Airbnb). When an average user sees a free service and a paid service both offering what is essentially information, they will go free every day. Since the price of reaching people on the Internet is so low, and the difficulty of getting paid is high, freemium platforms emerge and can outcompete paid competitors by leveraging this fact.
As a consequence to this, quality tools have retreated into paid niches, driven to raise prices. We are essentially left with two product types: gigantic Google-like freemium platforms, and high-quality high-expense alternatives (e.g. Feedly in the Google Reader example). While the former might suck at serving their users and providing value/quality, they make so much money that a cheap, quality tool or a paid, large platform will be quickly snuffed out like a candle without huge investor subsidies.
I don’t really understand why this gets a domain name instead of being a blog post. I read it feeling like this was the result of some collaboration or consortium trying to ask myself if the author might have something to gain from it, when really it seems to just be the work of one person. But maybe it is good to have an entire domain for some reason.
A domain name is ~$10/y. If you have a concept that you want to be able to link people to, it's more than I would pay, but I could see it being worth it.
(In many ways I prefer the opposite: by hanging everything off of jefftk.com people who come for one post or project may find others of mine they like.)
The fact that I've seen this repeated so much tells me these SAASes are probably more reliant on the free users than they realize. Otherwise they wouldn't talk about it, because they'd have done it, and it wouldn't have been a big deal.
This is a "never do X" opinionated click bait (click bait because we are always interested in a confident never do X expert opinion vs. the less interesting reasoned debate.).
A lot of what I use (including as a paying user), I use because I was able to start on a free tier and then upgrade as my needs grew. DaVinci Resolve, Sublime Text, GSuite, WeTransfer, Dropbox, iCloud, Sequel Pro, etc. I didn't try Premier, Final Cut, various text editors or paid-only cloud services.
The article talks about the costs, suggesting the net result is often bad. Basically they are saying, "Ignore end users online because they are only seeing and talking about one half of the equation."
All you've done is essentially say, "I'm an end user online who only knows one half of the equation but you should ignore costs!"
It just feels like a failure to engage with the point the article is actually making.
I am involved with a number of products which range between paid-only, freemium and free, so I'm familiar with the pros/cons. I know both sides of the equation but was offering comment on one half.
The author appears to have a freemium product in their portfolio, and acknowledges there can be reason for that.
Countless established or major players (Dropbox, Basecamp, Trello, etc) seem to make use of the freemium angle. Suspect there's something in that and that a free tier is a necessary evil at times.
I tried iMovie at some point but it was too limited to assess the featureset that would be required. DaVinci Resolve's free tier gives you basically everything short of 5K export, built-in noise reduction, and a couple of other things - easily proved itself indispensable so I happily upgraded. You also get some great forum help from high-end Resolve users that is relevant to those learning.
This supports the parent post and does not refute it.
Although you may have been unsatisfied with iMovie, it is in fact the free tier of Final Cut Pro, much as GarageBand is the free tier of Logic.
Interestingly enough, iMovie and GarageBand even have iPhone and iPad versions (though sadly there's no iPadOS version of FCP/Logic yet.) Though Final Cut Pro and Logic do run amazingly well on an M1 Mac mini.
> Although you may have been unsatisfied with iMovie, it is in fact the free tier of Final Cut Pro, much as GarageBand is the free tier of Logic.
Are they though?
I think of a free version as having the same interface and core functionality with locked features. Does iMovie have the same interface/menus/workflow as Final Cut now?
These seem more like the "let's not dilute the product by repackaging some of the codebase into a mass market interface" versions.
Admittedly I haven't used them in years but I do recall learning about non linear editing in premiere pro years ago and ditching iMovie for adobe in a flash.
More recently I've gone the resolve route as well, even though I have active adobe subscriptions through with along with years of experience.
> Does iMovie have the same interface/menus/workflow as Final Cut now?
As I understand it, it was Final Cut Pro X that changed to be closer to iMovie; this was criticized at the time as Apple removed several features that had been in Final Cut Pro 7.
Or, alternatively, the 90 day fully featured free trial that you can renew by running the installer again. I'll buy it at some point, but for the one video I edit a year, $300 is pretty expensive to get the experience I had with iMovie '09.
Offer no free plan but releasing it as free software avoids your cost per user, prevents complaints about paid features, and allows you and your users to give back. Seems like it should at least be mentioned as an alternative.
At https://serpapi.com, we are actually aiming for the reverse. We don’t have a free plan at the moment only free trials with credit card validations and are going to introduce a small free plan soon-ish.
3 big arguments for a free plan from our perspective: Ease for marketing, allow Enterprise users to try out when giving up credit card info is a process for them, and lower Stripe dispute rates.
Yeah, this has stopped me trialling services several times in the past, because I don't want to use my personal credit card, and the hoops to use a business credit card are rather time consuming.
Depends who you're targeting with the paid plans, I think।
The OP sort of addresses this in 'won't I miss out on paid users', but it's sort of a cop-out/has some unmentioned assumptions। Anyone small wants to start off free and pay more as their usage (and own revenue) grows - enterprise may be willing to pay hundreds per month off the bat, sure, but are they your customer?
I run deadmansswitch.net, and the free plan there only lets you send messages after two days, when people generally prefer much longer intervals.
This serves as a time-unlimited trial that lets you try the product before upgrading, and if some people are fine with super short periods, good for them. It's worked out very well.
Your pricing page currently shows “Test” in the Intervals row on the Free column. I imagine it should instead say “1 day” or similar. Just thought I’d give you a heads up
231 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 271 ms ] threadIf you offer a free service, it'll be used to host spam, porn or other illegal activity
We’ve all worked on social websites (including Facebook) and we’ve all seen what users are capable of uploading.
One of our internal initiatives is improving our ability to find this stuff and remove it without having to actually engage and look at it regularly. Ugh. Offering any kind of storage at all, free or paid, comes with some risks.
I think the example in the article used such low numbers to make the calculation easier. In most cases, the kind of SAAS they are talking about would have at least one or two orders of magnitude more users.
Reshaping the question: would you rather have 50,000 users paying $1 or 1,000 paying $50 each? your MBA caveat largely becomes moot.
I would also point out your logic about his revenue stream comparison falls apart when you double the numbers to 2,000 vs 20 customers.
I have seen trial plans with a small $ attached before though.
https://www.sublimetext.com/3
[1] https://songrender.com
And drunker.
I think author’s opinion about subscription fatigue is low-end market thinking or B2C. Most businesses actually making money are used to the subscription model now, Gsuite, Office 365, Adobe Creative Suite, NetSuite, etc. The trick there is to reduce the risk for them to try it on. Unless you want to pay an army of salespeople.
Consider the wages paid to tradespeople who make useful, non hyperscale products. Or even the salary differential between fields of computer work (web vs embedded, for example).
Whether the assumption is right or wrong for each business, it's not hard to see how we've gotten here.
As discussed elsewhere in this thread, this line of thinking can even be completely reasonable for various services that have low costs associated with the free offering. It's when the free offering costs a significant amount to operate that you start running into trouble.
People whining for more is fairly normal. Wanting it for everyone in perpetuity is new.
Does everyone think most businesses are somehow ad supported?
Not necessarily ads, but they might assume most businesses will monetize whatever info they get their hands on however they can. Especially so for free offerings ("you are the product" etc.).
Nah, that behaviour has been around since before this millennium. They don't actual want it for everybody but they think they might get a better response if they look less self oriented.
"do what I want/need, not just for me you understand, but for the community"
Cheap users tend to be inexpert users. Expert users who really value your offering enough to pay more are those who understand why it's worth the money. They likely understand the problem or use that your work addresses, and they have enough knowledge to know which knobs to turn to use your product and be aware of the limits of what it can and should do.
A cheap user is more likely to be one who isn't very savvy, doesn't understand the scope and limitations of your product, and thus thinks it should solve more problems than it does, or to put it another way, 'be a dessert topping AND a floor wax'
I work for an amazon subsidiary. We have free unlimited aws enterprise support. It's like pulling teeth for me to get our engineers to engage enterprise support. We know they have a ton of experience with triaging various aws tools and usage. Again we pay nothing for it, but one might consider we pay a massive amount for it as well. But we think we are experts on every system we touch.
Many of our issues would have been solved N days faster if we had just reached out to them immediately.
I would say we greatly over index on not bothering support.
Not all are like this if course. But the proportion who are terrible is higher than you'd like.
We've had a couple on the dark side though. Perhaps because we are "too helpful" and actually, respond instead of forwarding on the support procedures documentation or pointing at the contract and coughing! Give 'em an inch, they'll take a foot, and before you know it you won't have a leg to stand on...
If there's any consolation, people like this have near zero impact on the actual sales. Reasonable customers who research reviews are used to filtering out nutty feedback. So all you get is megabytes of virtual outrage from people that would have never bought your product in the first place.
If the results seem fairly rational, I may have second thoughts about going that way. If the negative reviews come from people who seem unhinged, then the fact that they bubbled to the top is a good indication that only nutbars hate the project.
Call it hyperloglog as applied to counterarguments for a product.
To a large extent, this is why advertising (and related data selling) is so widespread: because it is obvious how to make money from the data. Someone said they'll give you $1,000 for a list of all the users who are male, in Canada, and have typed in stuff about Python.
The parent's example about tag hierarchies... That sounds like exactly the kind of nifty feature I've seen launch a dozen times that has precisely zero impact on revenue.
Take a look at Google for a great example of this: Their "local guide" feature on Google Maps is using gamification to improve location data by convincing users to work for free; or Recaptcha using user input to train their machine learning models.
Quantity data is not a substitute for quality data.
Give an engineer a qualitative data point and they'll find a way to invalidate it.
But give them a million invalid data points...
What it makes me think of is genealogy, part of which can be thought of as the process of assigning records (birth, marriage, death, census, etc) to entities (natural persons). These are complex determinations requiring understanding and correlating multiple records, and analyzing them in terms of information which is not explicit in the records (eg, knowing about relevant place names, name changes, etc). In the case of businesses, imagine trying to figure out the connection or lack of connection between the many Ray’s Pizza shops in New York City, as they open, close, and change names, locations, and owners over time.
Asana has a paid plan with a 5-user minimum limit. I never bothered to even try it since I wouldn’t have the extended time to play with it. As a result it never even got mentioned to companies I’ve worked with.
So, it’s important to have a free plan (or at least very cheap paid plan as the article recommended) for “influencers” to get heavily involved with.
My experience is that I rarely have enough time to determine if I really like the service or if it's still just a shiny new tool to play with. I need more than 14-30 days to actually put in the work to understand a reasonably complex tool (say a CRM system) well enough to make a commercial recommendation.
Obviously this issue doesn't apply to all SaaS companies but it's probably common enough to be worthy of consideration.
Of course specifics and circumstances matters. If a tool is critical for the business then we will review everything in depth and pick the best, regardless of trial/free plan/etc. And of course, sometimes the critical task is simply to ship ASAP...
I, personally, rarely use a trial period for anything I’m testing for the long term. It’s not worth integrating it into my day to day if I may have to pay more then I want.
BUT, I do think it’s important to offer a free level for a lot of simple services to get people hooked. Costco does it, and it works for a lot of software.
- where free users are an onramp for getting $x,xxx/mo-$xx,xxx/mo contracts with companies.
- where many, many free users are subsidized every time a company signs up.
Trello/Jira/Asana seem to fall pretty firmly into that territory.
On the other hand, those running SaaS with fairly low per-month subscription value (e.g. $99-150/mo, as a lot of smaller or bootstrapped SaaSes seem to charge [1]) wouldn't necessarily get much value from these users.
[1]: https://plausible.io/#pricing (just picked these folks at random)
For me free plans work best for products that other products can be built on top of, because if I think I am going to build a product I want to have enough of a free tier that I can build the service and when I start having to pay for it I will have enough progress to know that it is worth investing money as well as time in it. Basically when I start paying for a service like that I want to have my product in release and at least a customer or two.
Of course I have only ever achieved this once.
On the other hand, if I have unlimited time then I will likely start with a pretty broad look at the available competitors and then once I've signed up for what appears to be the best option, I'll only look into competitors as I hit roadblocks.
Also, please don't send multiple "You've only got X-N days left in your plan!" pressure-to-convert emails.
(edit, removed indefinite pronoun)
Daily quota is the way to go. Amazon free micro instances are a perfect example. Enough to build. Not enough to go to production.
Without a free version I'm less likely to try out a new version or deviate as much as I would if there's not a clear benefit. It makes the software stickier (assuming they did improve it).
ALWAYS have a lifetime free plan. It's okay to make it a useless lifetime free plan (your data disappears every 2 weeks; you have a 3 email per day quota; etc.). It just need to be enough to seriously evaluate your product, and if it has APIs, to develop to them. There are sometimes good reasons to do more, and sometimes not. But that's the minimum.
In the early days of AWS, I would build thing on AWS' free tier, and they turned into products later. One product is making AWS millions (literally). AWS lost out when I changed orgs, my one-year free tier quota was gone, and I couldn't do the same at future orgs.
At big organizations, the overhead of a PO is sufficient that you don't do it unless you have a compelling business case. Free plan allows you to build a business case over a weekend.
I've gone free->paid many times.
It's worth noting the figures here. The case for a free plan is much more compelling for a Fortune 500 company who will sign a million-dollar contract than for a small business.
As a user:
- If I need the service and only intend to use it for a very small project, I love forever free plans. Because I know I can subscribe use your server time and forget my account forever. I often subscribe with a temp email so that I don't even receive your emails anymore.
- If I seriously need the service and is ready to pay for it, I don't really care about the free forever plan vs free trial vs paid trial.
As a business:
- Any time I have offered a free forever plan, basically 95% of the created accounts are dormant free accounts (like I personally am when I find the correct tool to scratch my itch). 4% are from people (usually from south east asia) creating hundreds/thousands of accounts (sometimes manually !) to circumvent the free plan limitations instead of just paying for the service. And 1% are from legitimate users/customers.
- People in the 95 and 4% categories still believe they are owed support. And if you don't give them an easy way to let them contact you, they now have twitter and facebook and business reviews websites to get to you. On top of emails, LinkedIn messages and yes, phone calls.
- Cutting the free accounts has almost no impact on real customers acquisition. You can let people experience your product with a temporary trial, that includes support and way more features, but behind the credit card screen. Extend the free trial as much as needed if people ask for it through your usual support channel. You will still get abusers but those are easier to detect, because they need to provide some payment details which are harder to fake, and after you shut them down for the third time in a row, they usually go away.
What's the issue? Unused account shouldn't be a big spending. If it become one, take a bit of time to change it a bit (delete data/stop service after a set amount of inactivity) and use that occasion to send them an email that remind them that your service exist.
Google Cloud is this way: stay below their free usage limits for some services and you'll never need to pay; but you need to give them your card up-front because it's a post-paid service and they need to ensure they can charge you if-and-when you do go over those limits.
Or, for another approach: how about a plan that's free, but where there's a small one-time fee on signup, regardless of the plan you choose? (You can be upfront to your users and tell them it's a KYC measure, if you like.)
Or, how about a free service, but gated with a real KYC/AML process on signup (of the "sign in through your bank" or "upload your driver's license to this third party" variety.)
Any of these approaches, IMHO, would filter out the 4% of spammers; and also act as a barrier to anyone who isn't serious about eventually trying the service — while not being as much of a barrier to people like the GP poster, who take five months to get around to testing a service before becoming a diehard fan of it, and don't want to be paying for those five months, but also look in apprehension at the idea of possibly having to spend time trying to get their (as-yet-unused) trial extended.
Maybe. MAYBE. I'll give you a credit card number since I know I can always dispute/chargeback if you turn out to be dishonest. No way do you get anything that can't be 100% undone within a few minutes.
Re: bank accounts, nobody was suggesting that, that's not how KYC systems work. Re: driver's license info, that's not quite how (well-implemented, modern) KYC flows work, either.
For "signing up using your bank", I wasn't talking about giving the service a photo of a void cheque or anything; I was talking about doing Single Sign-On into the service, with your bank acting as the SSO (usually SAML) provider, through a SAML broker.
I don't know if this is common anywhere else, but in Canada we have a pretty popular SAML SSO broker doing this (https://securekey.com/) ; it allows you to use all our major banks as SSO authentication agents (works with both web and mobile-app flows); and this SSO method is in use for many government sites (e.g. it's how you log in to file your taxes, pay federal student loans, etc.) Any (Canadian) business can actually add SSO to their site/app through this broker. And, just like with any other (good) SSO method, the app being signed into through the SSO broker doesn't receive your credentials.
Re: driver's license info, with regular KYC flows, you don't upload your driver's license info to the first party. Instead, you're directed to a trusted neutral third party (the KYC/AML provider), who has their own app; you give your credentials to that service, through its own app, which is essentially the account-creation flow for your account with that service; and then the first-party service you were interacting with SSOs you through the KYC service as an OAuth/OIDC flow.
I don't mean to spread FUD, it just seems needlessly risky to make banks the central point of auth.
In theory, the bank is really incentivized to provide proper and secure authentication (if someone can impersonate you to your bank, you're kinda screwed anyway). So, it only makes sense to trust a bank to provide the authentication service. One should realize that SSO integration with a bank doesn't mean 3rd party has any sort of access to the bank - it' just means that you authorize your bank to tell a 3rd party "yes, I believe this is really curryst"). Doesn't increase the attack surface for you - it only increases the "blast radius" if someone successfully compromises your bank account. But that one is typically already a dire situation.
Once the bank won't authenticate you for some reason, all the accounts bound to this SSO provider also go the way of dodo.
Personally, I use my bank only for banking and would never ever consider using them as an SSO provider. They handle my money, I don't want them to handle anything else or have any more information about me than they already do. Also, in my personal experience, the banks aren't very technologically competent, so the less they are expected to do, the better.
I can easily see use cases where someone without buying power can get a 50, maybe even 100 USD bond or 'license' of some sort PROVIDED that there's either only one or even more ideally a set of competitors who's "not a bad actor" licenses are interoperable; and work on the whole Internet for that task (without expiring until bad karma is dinged).
However no, nickle and dime-d to death, as well as those 'free but remember to cancel' plans, are the exact reason I'd never hand over real billing info until I'm serious about being billed.
What you're talking about with that "license" is exactly what you get by everybody relying on a small set of KYC providers; except that the KYC provider doesn't charge you for registration, but instead requires a Proof-of-Stake in some state's legal system (i.e. a set of documents that require laborious up-front proofs to acquire, such that it's very hard to acquire two sets of them, but which can be used to validate identity freely once issued.)
KYC providers that just charge $100 instead of requiring a Proof-of-Stake challenge exist, too. That's essentially the (secondary?) purpose of businesses that will only trade with other incorporated businesses (or, to abstract that away, only with businesses that have a Dun & Bradstreet DUNS number): it costs $100 to incorporate, or to register one of those numbers, so you have to be at least $100 of serious to bother them, and you can't just keep spending hundred-dollar-bills forever to keep generating new identities to DDoS someone.
What I haven't heard of, interestingly, is a KYC provider that requires a proof of work. Something like "solve a thousand Captchas to create an account." Or a formalized version of the old "take a photo of yourself holding up today's newspaper." But that'd be totally workable as well.
About 10 months ago I got emails from a company that developed an development environment that was I was mildly interested in. They presented an offer with said it was free so that people could help educate themselves during lockdown. Unfortunately the terms was after 1 year you needed to pay something like $1500 if you didn't cancel, these terms were right at the bottom of the page and very hard to spot. Paid through PayPal and the about $1500 was there right in front of me. I cancelled it on the same day.
A company offering that sort of deal waiting for people not to cancel and saying it is to help people during the lockdowns is just awful.
> Would you rather have 10 users that pay $100 monthly, or 1,000 users that pay $1?
I think this question is meant as an illustration but perhaps it hints at a rule of thumb. Let me substitute a different question and see what you think:
Do you want 1000 users paying $500 a month, or 5 million users paying a $1 a month?
5 million suggests a broad but shallow appeal to the app, and I don't doubt at all that the author has seen customers exhibit all of the listed behaviors - and more. But perhaps an application with a narrow but deep appeal makes sense with a free tier. You can always expand the appeal of your product to reach more markets once you have a proven track record and word of mouth working for you.
I would also say that at a minimum, if you don't let people test drive your application, you have to be quite skilled at creating demos and walkthroughs, and encourage third parties to do the same. Growing that kind of talent in house is probably too slow and unreliable. You're going to have to pay for at least one person to give you good advice.
Well, that. Or somebody with leverage trying to reduce risks before jumping into a platform. Or somebody evaluating the options before deciding. Or somebody just making something the quickest way possible, leaving slow decisions for later...
There are many cases that fit the same sequence. They do impose different requirements on the free tier, but I don't think you'll ever measure them well enough to discover what is what.
This is exactly it. I've been both with and without purchasing authority.
WITH purchasing authority, at many organizations, I still need paperwork and approvals. To give an extreme example, try working for an EU government agency....
My patterns definitely fit the ones described. 95% of the time, I create an account, and nothing comes of it:
* I try five tools, and pick one.
* I try five tools, and pick zero.
* I do a weekend hackathon, and there is no business case
* I do a weekend hackathon, there is a business case, but yours isn't the right product
... etc.
But 5% of the time, there's a conversion, and with big orgs, quite often a big $$$ conversion. Those 95% cost you nearly nothing, or act as discovery (I rarely make a support call, but if I do make one, it's valuable to you).
As a footnote, in many industries, you give actual, physical products which cost $$$ for free (e.g. an IC) for this reason. Some of these do put up gateways to make sure I'm from a place which might go from 1 sample to buying 10,000 (or an ed institution). I don't think those are a good fit, but I do think it's possible (and not too difficult) to screen out abuse in most cases.
You don't need a free-forever plan to make those decisions, in these cases, just a sufficiently long timed-trial.
I've exhausted enough 2-week trials to know.
And at the same time, I'm hesitant to start them, since once they're gone, they're gone. You want minimal friction. Two clicks, and I'm using your tool. Yes, lower friction decreases your conversion rate, but that's because more people who aren't sure will try your tool.
You're right that there is a place for free plans, the article I wrote is probably too one-sided. I planned on adding an extra section near the end for some cases when a free plan does make sense (I will wait until it is no longer discussed here).
Other than the "influencer" angle you mentioned, it also makes sense for products where you can offer the first X units for free, and many will have the desire for more (2 free designs for a website builder, or the first 10 levels free in a video game).
The core point of your article was still clear, and as a result generated interesting discussion and follow up for an update.
One thing is for sure, no one likes a service that changes prices with free > paid being the least likable. (paid > free as the nr 2?)
I think you can get away by describing the situation properly in advance. i.e. what might happen with the free service in the future. Something like: Guaranteed to be free for 6 months (12 months if you register now). If we fail to reach an audience by offering a free plan it will be x dollar per month/year/query. We will contact you 3 months in advance.
It seems the free pony! era has to end. Downtime from cleaning up after a vanishing free service is to annoying.
The broader problem with this example is that the companies in question evidently don't value information, and have instead relied on personal hubris, which speaking as a longtime service provider is itself a red flag for "problem customer", and if not quite the horrors depicted in the article then certainly on that spectrum.
All of which illustrates that talking to anyone who self-describes as an "influencer" is generally a net negative, unless you're in the FMCG category. Influencers demanding freebies is something to be abhorred, and there is no equivalence here to seeking high quality professional advice.
> the companies in question evidently don't value information, and have instead relied on personal hubris
Nothing in the post indicated hubris to me. "I have used this service before and can give you an estimation of how well it fits our usecase" is probably the best information about a service you can get. The alternative is to spend time and money to discover that yourself.
Claiming that you are personally responsible for Jira and Trello's marketing cut-through is sheer hubris.
And furthermore:
> The alternative is to spend time and money to discover that yourself
That's not an "alternative", that is simply professional consulting behaviour. Making the recommendation whilst declining to invest in the quality of that recommendation is hubris. And I'll double down by adding that "influencers" demanding freebies is downright obnoxious hubris. In the last few years, some segment of the tech community has normalized this behaviour as somehow acceptable and rational, but in practice it's as toxic as the article suggests.
I've also got a number of solutions that just solve the problem at reasonable price. My recommendation in those categories will be "X can do it; have you got specific requirements that X doesn't match? if not, I can implement it with X and we can review that in months/years".
Somewhat tautological perhaps, but also, thereby, not a compelling reason to offer a free plan, nor to be proud of being glib.
In addition highlighting that any comparison between an influencer and a consultant depends on false equivalence, which is why I don't consider them part of a product ecosystem (esp. when compared with ISVs, VARs and MSPs), or a substitute for thoughtful, professional advisors.
You’re totally correct in your assertions and the understanding of the intent and meaning of my post.
We have a free plan that basically locks you down collaboration wise (limits inviting anyone to your projects).
We haven't had many people convert yet (https://portabella.io/open) but I'm starting to think it'd be better to offer no free plan but a 7 day free trial
To someone that you don't hate?
How much do you cost the company by using the software for free? How much cost the thousands of users that use the product for free and don't recommend it to paying users?
Free plan doesn't have a one sided answer. Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes it is not. Would Salesforce benefit from having a fee plan? This is not obvious to me
I can tell you that AWS free tier in my case didn’t “convert” from their metric perspective, but they turned into commercial accounts that generated $5-6M for my customers that early adopted.
I can think of a lot of other paid SaaS stuff (Trello, Basecamp, Dropbox come to mind) where that free plan translated into real revenue. For work stuff, the effort to spend $500 is as much as $5M.
Comment thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25978396
This honestly feels like my argument written from the perspective of the product maker. I hope we meet in the middle on this subject, because it seems like there’s some good overlap to be had. Good tools should not just be built for free because that’s how we’ve always done it. Make everyone happy.
How did it come to this? Well, at least in the short term, this kind of business busts up traditional high-quality paid tools. If a Google-like business enters a market where a high-quality paid competitor exists, they will subsidize something similar with VC money and suck users away, bankrupting the competitor. Then, with the power they have gained they are free to focus on monetizing their users, which is a story for another time.
This is especially made easier by the fact that it is really difficult to get paid on the Internet: you are essentially selling access to information, not a physical good (all of this might not apply to businesses rooted in the physical world like Amazon and Airbnb). When an average user sees a free service and a paid service both offering what is essentially information, they will go free every day. Since the price of reaching people on the Internet is so low, and the difficulty of getting paid is high, freemium platforms emerge and can outcompete paid competitors by leveraging this fact.
As a consequence to this, quality tools have retreated into paid niches, driven to raise prices. We are essentially left with two product types: gigantic Google-like freemium platforms, and high-quality high-expense alternatives (e.g. Feedly in the Google Reader example). While the former might suck at serving their users and providing value/quality, they make so much money that a cheap, quality tool or a paid, large platform will be quickly snuffed out like a candle without huge investor subsidies.
(In many ways I prefer the opposite: by hanging everything off of jefftk.com people who come for one post or project may find others of mine they like.)
This is a "never do X" opinionated click bait (click bait because we are always interested in a confident never do X expert opinion vs. the less interesting reasoned debate.).
All you've done is essentially say, "I'm an end user online who only knows one half of the equation but you should ignore costs!"
It just feels like a failure to engage with the point the article is actually making.
The author appears to have a freemium product in their portfolio, and acknowledges there can be reason for that.
Countless established or major players (Dropbox, Basecamp, Trello, etc) seem to make use of the freemium angle. Suspect there's something in that and that a free tier is a necessary evil at times.
(This was after Final Cut Pro X, not 7.)
Although you may have been unsatisfied with iMovie, it is in fact the free tier of Final Cut Pro, much as GarageBand is the free tier of Logic.
Interestingly enough, iMovie and GarageBand even have iPhone and iPad versions (though sadly there's no iPadOS version of FCP/Logic yet.) Though Final Cut Pro and Logic do run amazingly well on an M1 Mac mini.
Are they though?
I think of a free version as having the same interface and core functionality with locked features. Does iMovie have the same interface/menus/workflow as Final Cut now?
These seem more like the "let's not dilute the product by repackaging some of the codebase into a mass market interface" versions.
Admittedly I haven't used them in years but I do recall learning about non linear editing in premiere pro years ago and ditching iMovie for adobe in a flash.
More recently I've gone the resolve route as well, even though I have active adobe subscriptions through with along with years of experience.
I just don't like cloud dependent software.
As I understand it, it was Final Cut Pro X that changed to be closer to iMovie; this was criticized at the time as Apple removed several features that had been in Final Cut Pro 7.
https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/trial/
3 big arguments for a free plan from our perspective: Ease for marketing, allow Enterprise users to try out when giving up credit card info is a process for them, and lower Stripe dispute rates.
Yeah, this has stopped me trialling services several times in the past, because I don't want to use my personal credit card, and the hoops to use a business credit card are rather time consuming.
The OP sort of addresses this in 'won't I miss out on paid users', but it's sort of a cop-out/has some unmentioned assumptions। Anyone small wants to start off free and pay more as their usage (and own revenue) grows - enterprise may be willing to pay hundreds per month off the bat, sure, but are they your customer?
This serves as a time-unlimited trial that lets you try the product before upgrading, and if some people are fine with super short periods, good for them. It's worked out very well.