🖖 New Pricing FAQ

Today we’ve introduced the new pricing (3rd iteration). The goal is simplicity. There is no longer Band edition, no minimal or maximal users limits, no huge jumps from 4 to 5 and from 20 to 21 users.

Is it cheaper?

For the former Team edition it is definitely cheaper. Let’s say for 10 users you paid $180/month, Standard costs $120/month. For the former Company edition it depends. For 20 users it is cheaper, but for 40 it is not.

Can I switch to new pricing?

Yes, just contact us via Intercom or Email and we can switch you to the new pricing plan. Note that if you purchased for a full year, you will be credited for the remaining amount.

Can I remain on the old pricing tier?

Yes, you can. Old pricing will be active till 1st January 2023, so you have more than a year on it if you don’t want to switch (Band edition customers, for example).

Standard plan has limited History, can I expect more limitations in the future?

Yes, we might add some limits, but we will do it to not affect existing accounts (or at least keep it minimal). Most likely bi-directional sync will not be added into Standard plan, and we might add some limits to API calls. But it is not certain yet.

Are you going to change Free tier?

Yes, we want to introduce a free tier with unlimited users at some point, but we want to learn what kind of limits will work for you and for us to make it happen. Personal edition will be always free anyway.

3 Likes

I assume this is true?

  • 1 User → Free
  • 2 Users → $20
  • 3 Users → $30

If the same limitations apply between free and standard, I think it would be just a bit less of a hump if you treated the first user as free, then each additional user as $10/month. So, you’d have this instead:

  • 1 User → Free
  • 2 Users → $10
  • 3 Users → $20

In the grand scheme of things for the big accounts, it might be a drop in the bucket, but it would feel less like an abrupt step up to add that first user you plan to collaborate with. Either way, thanks for keeping the limitations minimal.

2 Likes

Hello, maybe I’m daft but I don’t understand what limiting the history to 90 days entails! (and you probably should explain this in your pricing page…)

Does it mean documents dating more than 90 days cannot be accessed? Or is that only entities? Is it based on creation date or last update date? Are those entities still visible in search or not? If I view an entity that was created recently but has links to older entities what happens? I’m not sure for a product management perspective limiting your “backlog window” to 90 days can really work. Same if you use fibery as a crm, or to log user tests.

It seems to be like a very harsh limit on the standard plan! It works for slack because it’s the right balance between frustration and easiness to overcome (its a chat app, conversations can be had again). Seems more problematic for an app that is designed to facilitate inputting as much data as possible inside it. But I guess it depends on usage.

It might work to push your user base toward the higher plan…

Any information about storage limitations on each plan?

If I am not wrong, it means activity history.

By History we mean Audit/Change History. It limits:

  • What can be undeleted
  • What changes can be recovered
  • History reports (burn down chart, Cumulative flow diagram, etc).

It should not affect most accounts on our opinion.

2 Likes

There are no storage limitations. At least our stats show us that we don’t need them so far.

3 Likes

I am really surprised that after a thread where you asked us for suggestions in pricing now you put out a new pricing model with an “history” limit.
So I am managing a project and I will lose open bugs of more than 90 days? I will lose my okr of two month ago?
Please clarify because this thing will obviously force me to search an alternative.
Thanks,
Mario

We will clarify this limit, you will definitely have access to ALL your entities, the limit is for CHANGES history. It means if you changed a bug, the history of these changes will be available for up to 90 days

2 Likes

Ok so this must be clarified because usually you think something different when you hear about “history”.

Ok, good to hear! It would be useful to clarify indeed as Slack users are used to understand history as “hide older stuff”.

Now that I understand the meaning, on the other hand I don’t see it as a strong digferenciator between plans so wonder is the pain to explain this is worth the separation honestly. But I’m glad to know we will still have full access to the documents and entities :wink:

1 Like

I hope that Rich Text history is not counted towards Audit (which is on the UI for entities only), as this is now only way for tracking a who added what in “git blame” like fashion. I’m ok with not being able to roll back something old, I need a way to know who to ask for the stuff in the docs.

I also hope that implementation of history is Slack-like, letting you see the further into the past after upgrade.

I was surprised by the confusion around the term “history”, it was immediately intuitive to me. Then I saw the connection to Slack and it all made sense. I am happy blaming Slack for all problems and confusion. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

As far as pricing, for my small team it is definitely much worse than before (well, compared to early/original pricing). We just got a renewal bill , $252/yr for 3 users = $7/user/mo. Now it would be $360. :confused: But fair enough, I understand why it’s like this.

I do like @rothnic 's suggestion though, i.e. first free user remains free even as you add paid collaborators. It would mean our pricing slightly goes down (not the main desire here, but a nice benefit), but should not significantly affect revenue of larger accounts which I assume is really where the money is given your assurance of generous free capabilities.

3 Likes

Easier to understand, less intimidating than before for smaller teams.
Even if you don’t need to limit storage, I find it’s one of those things that can be worth paying a higher price for, but at the same time the majority of the people wouldn’t feel like they’re limited, just like history. So I wouldn’t mind a decent storage limit, if it still allows the lower plans a good chunk of GBs.

The best limits are those that don’t really make you feel like you’re giving up something, unless you really need that thing, in which case you gladly spend more, I believe.

2 Likes

How about receiving $X credit for each additional user you invite who joins?
(so basically, each person who joins is free for Y months…)

1 Like

Hmm… well, better than the current approach, at least. Do you have in mind any numbers for what Y months might be?

No idea! I wrote it before even chatting to anyone(!)
I just thought that it might be mutually beneficial, in that offering credit might encourage people to invite colleagues (I think Airtable does it).
We discussed internally using rewards (credit) for achieving certain milestones (create your first space, configure your first view etc.) so this was just one of those sorts of things.
Guess it might not be so helpful for experienced users :wink: