SOHO and SMB Cloud Storage Recommendations
-
We use Confluence here. Not every employee has access to it, managers generally request access when a user is hired or when there is a need.
-
@coliver said:
We use Confluence here. Not every employee has access to it, managers generally request access when a user is hired or when there is a need.
They make great products. I used to work down the street from them and walk past their offices in San Fran on my commute. I've used them at a few shops. In one it was something like only .1% of the organization had access (financial firm) and at the other is was something like 25% (dedicated software dev shop and DevOps using it across engineering and administration.)
-
Are you using Atlassian products @scottalanmiller? If so, which ones, and how do you like them?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
We use Confluence here. Not every employee has access to it, managers generally request access when a user is hired or when there is a need.
They make great products. I used to work down the street from them and walk past their offices in San Fran on my commute. I've used them at a few shops. In one it was something like only .1% of the organization had access (financial firm) and at the other is was something like 25% (dedicated software dev shop and DevOps using it across engineering and administration.)
I'm not sure the percentage here... but it is fairly low. Maybe in the 10-15% range. I was just trying to reinforce that not everyone is using this software like O365 or Office. Even if that is the case the pricing is pretty similar.
-
@anonymous said:
Are you using Atlassian products @scottalanmiller? If so, which ones, and how do you like them?
I've used Stash, BitBucket, Jira, HipChat and a few others from time to time. They make great stuff but very much assume that you will conform to how they do things.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
but very much assume that you will conform to how they do things.
Is that a bad thing, or just something to know?
-
JetBrains YouTrack pricing (same percentage of users as Atlassian software, so add one to two zeros to compare to MS Office...)
10 Users: Free Special (Dramatic Drop in Features)
15 Users: $1.33
25 Users: $3
50 Users: $3
100 Users: $3
500 Users: $1
2000 Users: $.50Same general curve with low prices for organizations of around 150 and hitting the peak for the 250 - 1000 range then dropping fast.
-
@anonymous said:
Is that a bad thing, or just something to know?
Good to know, you will be investing time into doing things the Atlassian way. But their way can be good, so you might benefit from their best practices.
-
Very different as this is 1% or less type numbers but the same curve with FreshBooks..
1U: $13/U
2U: $20/U
3U: $26/U
4U: $20/U
5U: $16/UAnd that is as big as they go. That's a lot of people for an accounts receivable office so figure organizations are 100x the size of the number of users here. So 200 - 400 person companies are the most expensive with ~300 seeming to be the most expensive position. Again, lining up with the MS Office pricing model.
-
HUH, I can't say that I've seen this type of curve before. I'm more accustomed to the AV curve.
5 users: $25/user
10 users: $23/user
100 users: $21/userIt seems odd to start out low, ramp up and then spike back down.
I suppose I could see something at or near free for super small, but I would expect (clearly my expectations are wrong) the prices to start high for 10+ users, but only go down as the number of users goes up.
-
@scottalanmiller Are you pulling these pricing scales directly from their websites?
-
@Dashrender said:
HUH, I can't say that I've seen this type of curve before. I'm more accustomed to the AV curve.
....
It seems odd to start out low, ramp up and then spike back down.I suppose I could see something at or near free for super small, but I would expect (clearly my expectations are wrong) the prices to start high for 10+ users, but only go down as the number of users goes up.
I don't think that it is odd at all when dealing with business applications where the use or features ramp up in a similar way. With O365 we already talked about how at a certain size the features actually change and while some organizations might choose to not leverage them, more is being offered and delivered to them and they also have different use cases making it make total sense why they would pay more.
All of this software is similar. At small sizes they just are not likely to use the software in the same, intensive way, that larger companies are. This means that the company providing the service has less to do to assist them and has to critically attract and retain small companies as they grow. So lowering the price for companies that can only barely use the product and ramping up as it becomes useful until the value of scale takes over and brings the per user price back down.
The thing is that there are two or three equations affecting the pricing curve with scale being only one. Another is features and the other is usefulness or intensity of use. Look at Jira as an example. A one person shop has zero use for it. A ten person shop can only justify the effort of using it if it is really cheap. But at 50 users, it's super valuable and will be used heavily and is worth a lot more per user.
So when looking at the factors involved, I think that the curve is incredibly sensible for many kinds of software. On the scale side you start to get companies rolling it out to "everyone", even those that won't use it just to make licensing easier, for example.
-
@Dashrender said:
HUH, I can't say that I've seen this type of curve before. I'm more accustomed to the AV curve.
5 users: $25/user
10 users: $23/user
100 users: $21/userIt seems odd to start out low, ramp up and then spike back down.
I suppose I could see something at or near free for super small, but I would expect (clearly my expectations are wrong) the prices to start high for 10+ users, but only go down as the number of users goes up.
No, your expectations are spot on. In all the examples we've discussed that is how it works : cheap for 10 users or less, then a hike, then getting cheaper. The only exception is Microsoft. Except in Scott's world where it is number of employees that matters not number of users.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
The only exception is Microsoft. Except in Scott's world where it is number of employees that matters not number of users.
The model is consistent, you are grasping at making this be about me when every example is consistent in the curve of how it applies to sizes of organizations. You asked for examples, you got them, but you are determined that whatever is provided isn't good enough.
Obviously Microsoft is wrong because I see logic in it. There is a direct correlation between me seeing something as obviously logical and it being wrong. I should have realized.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
No, your expectations are spot on.
Because they agree with your personal desires? Did you find no logic in my explanation of why it would be this way? If you found it illogical, why have you decided not to point out where it was wrong. If it was logical, why do you have these illogical expectations?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Except in Scott's world...So his examples didn't count because you disagree with the logic? Huh?
-
Pricing that had that central hump as you've shown, that appears to be there either because the customer will be stressing the system more as they reach that middle hump area, and the stress per sold user goes down afterword does make business sense, but still seems odd to me.
Pricing that humps because the vendor adds features as the hump goes up is being deceptive in their offerings in a price list as Scott has presented it. Instead of realizing I'm getting extra stuff (do I even want it, Access for example) the simple list looks like just because I'm a big boy means I get punished. If the offerings change, then the list should be decidedly divorced from the SMB area.
I'll just say instead of it being illogical, I just don't like it.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'll just say instead of it being illogical, I just don't like it.
That's fine but.... no one likes falling into the "high cost" tiers for products. But it happens. It's where the products probably carry the most value, which is probably also why you want it.
-
@Dashrender said:
Pricing that humps because the vendor adds features as the hump goes up is being deceptive in their offerings in a price list as Scott has presented it. Instead of realizing I'm getting extra stuff (do I even want it, Access for example) the simple list looks like just because I'm a big boy means I get punished.
So you feel that it is deceptive in a non-useful way to the vendor? I'm unsure what you feel is deceptive here. Where do you feel there is deception?
-
@Dashrender said:
Pricing that had that central hump as you've shown, that appears to be there either because the customer will be stressing the system more as they reach that middle hump area, and the stress per sold user goes down afterword does make business sense, but still seems odd to me.
What makes it odd? If someone rents a car but barely drives it and someone else rents a car and drives it a lot... you could easily bill by:
- Number of drivers
- Number of cars
- Number of miles
Only one of these maps what costs the vendor money to use: the number of miles driven. So it would often make sense to bill by wear and tear or a combination (car + mileage as the car is out of service for that time.) If you are likely to stress the system, why would it be odd to get charged more for doing so?
What's the factor that makes it seem odd?
Also, you are in the position of needing the product the most and having the least leverage to push the cost down. So just normal market forces alone could push the price up regardless of use or features.
