If permissions were standardized and consistent across the ecosystem (think access templates but everywhere), I could see paying a lower amount per month for a lower type of user. Something in between Admin/Member and Guest.
1 Like
I think this (cost of low-needs/short-term users) is probably one of the biggest examples, but representative of a larger thing which I was pushing on from a different direction previously: what are Fiberyâs easy, potentially âviralâ onboarding ramps? Few to none that I can see, really. Especially with the sunsetting of the free plan.
An easy and affordable way to bring in collaborators would be a strong example of that in a business context. I had previously been arguing for a more Notion-like personal-to-business conversion flow, and still believe it has a lot of potential (Notion just rolled out charts that are a fraction of the capability of Fibery and canât be created with AI 
), but thatâs probably not Fiberyâs future.
Some good onramps are necessary, not just for user fluency in the use of the tool, but before that, in how they get to the tool in the first place. Fibery remains largely unknown outside of a few circles, itâs not found on ToolFinder or often listed in comparisons of tools (like ClickUp, Monday, Wrike, etc.), and when it is (infrequently) mentioned it is often with surprise at not having heard of it before (and also often with a lot of praise!).
I donât say any of that as if itâs something Fibery team is not aware of, but it seems to be a problem still unsolved and I would consider the development of that âflywheelâ to be the top priority. What is it that not only gets people to use the tool but to share it in some way? Stating the obvious, but sometimes it needs restating. 
4 Likes
Fully agree. We are facing this both with freelancers for smaller projects as with clients. Weâve built a beautiful CRM. Itâs such a pain in the ass that we are using Google spreadsheets when we are onboarding a client because we canât collaborate with them in the workspace.
We are also selling Fibery workspaces to a specific group of customers. And itâs literally one of the two things that we give a disclaimer for:
- Fibery doesnât fully work well on mobile
- And you canât collaborate with freelancers/clients in the workspace if youâre not willing to pay for them.
Would be so awesome if we can have a solution for this 
Because almost every working human is looking for a good solution to communicate/collaborate with others.
4 Likes
Well said.
1 Like
Out of interest, what would you say are the characteristics/limitations that distinguish a (ideally free) user with âlimited functionsâ from a regular user?
In other words, if a âlimited userâ is able to create and edit entities, why would anyone pay for a regular member licence?
Is it the total number of entities they can work on? Is it the max number of edits per week/month?
Is it the number of distinct types (dbs) that the user can interact with?
2 Likes
Great question.
In my mind it was initially at the view level without really thinking it through, as I was thinking about Trello, but database level makes more sense to me.
Itâs attractive to have entity creation and edit limits, depending on how generous those limits are, but that seems to fit less what I had in mind.
1 Like
As a digital agency using Fibery to manage client asks, it would make sense for us to have âexternalâ users limited to a certain database, perhaps further restricted by a Relationship field.
Therefore, a client could login to comment / add / edit a Task, but only Tasks that are associated with their Company (a relationship on the Task).
Perhaps that extends to other use-cases, such as allowing a contractor to CRUD Entities related to the Project theyâre assigned to?
Perhaps the permissions model boils down to a per-Entity permission. Meaning, you basically get assigned to an Entity and could CRUD on all Entities directly related to that âprimaryâ Entity?
Just spit-balling here⌠It is a good question, once you start thinking about how to actually implement it in something as flexible as FiberyâŚ
This seems to align well with granting external users access to an entity and its related items via an access template?
Unfortunately, this doesnât align with the current access template model 
Part of the problem is that creating entities is a database level permission, and since Fibery doesnât have validation constraints, itâs not easy/clear how to only allow creating entities via a relationship.
1 Like
Hi Chris,
Itâs clearly important to balance a few things here. I think you could accomplish what you want with a few adjustments.
- Limit access to certain stuff of course.
- Create a new item (essentially a task) - perhaps later a milestone.
- No modifying items.
- No deleting items.
- BETTER SUPPORT of âfoundationalâ tools - even only limited to Google docs). That could theoretically be just a LINK or just an uploaded file - but this is one area where Fibery lacks:
---- If you make it a file, itâs just a detached additional document with no âbuilt-in foundational collaborative supportâ. Sharing a folder with a client that doesnât have to be a Fibery folder - think google drive, dropbox, box, box.net (and I donât know where to put MS onedrive in there) - that way you just let those tools handle the sync and hard stuff, you open your platform to way more people, and you simply integrate better with them.
---- If you make it a link then you (and collaborators) need to do a lot of unnecessary copying and pasting.
The above is largely how you handle customers.
For vendors and deeper collaborators just go with something similar to how Slack handles it - and charge less for that type of user. I donât think you provide that user for FREE because youâre not Slack.
And I still think one of the best ways you can provide a better collaborative experience - but perhaps Iâm too customer-focused - is to enable something similar to Coda-like embedding/framing of external items (google docs, one drive) - for only things like docs/spreadsheets - and have them able to be treated like an entity but open within the fibery space like a full fibery item not just a small embed. I donât now how Coda does it but I love that feature.
1 Like
For us I think it would feel logic that a free user has access to 1 entity + all itâs related items.
So a customer has access to his/her customer project.
A freelancer/contracter that works on a project has access to that project.
When a person works regularly in the workspace (i.e. a freelancer / virtual assistant that works on all kind of projects) then it feels logic for me to pay for that person.
This would be perfect I think!
1 Like
3 posts were split to a new topic: Fibery Free plan can be back (soon)
No surprise looking at my previous post, I find the less restrictive numbers that you share much more appealing. 
PS: Thanks for sharing a lovely update on the thinking, I also cannot believe that itâs been 8 months.
And I can only second the ask for an update for your anxiety homepage, that is still such a cool representation that definitely made me fall in love.
3 Likes
This. Anxiety page is what sold me (I read all marketing pages and that was the last one I saw, which prompted me to sign up).
6 Likes
Anecdotal, but same thing here â I was in the midst of shopping around amongst so many other tools that all started to look and sound the same, and the anxiety page was unique and honest enough that I just HAD to give Fibery a try after that.
5 Likes
Same, love the anxiety page. One of my favorite things about Fibery is the quirky honesty and transparency.
4 Likes
I got sold by the same feeling but from reading the Fibery vs. articles. The openness in admitting that Fibery wasnât perfect for every use case made a big difference.
2 Likes