TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Is seat-based pricing dead?

11 点作者 madmax10811 个月前

3 条评论

eskibars11 个月前
Seat-based pricing isn&#x27;t dead, but it&#x27;s on life support, though it has nothing to do with AI now or realistically in the future.<p>Consumption based pricing is becoming&#x2F;already the norm for 2 reasons. As a SaaS operator, my storage&#x2F;compute&#x2F;etc costs tend to go up with your usage. If I can bill by the metrics that affect my cost, then:<p>1. It feels more fair to the buyer (pay for what you use) and<p>2. Investors and finance folks like it because I can build a pricing model with consistent gross margins<p>This whole thing is hinged on the multitenant SaaS model generally though, and it being so prominent. For example, if I ship self-managed software, I no longer genefally incur hardware usage costs (except my support costs probably go up roughly linearly to usage).<p>AI doesn&#x27;t affect any of this reasoning.
评论 #40725323 未加载
tadfisher11 个月前
Sometimes your product&#x27;s value is derived from how much time each user saves using your tool. In that case, charging per-seat aligns incentives for both parties.<p>If Zendesk charged per-message or per-issue, then the incentive for the customer is to use the product less, creating less value for both parties. They would be eaten by a product that charges per-seat and optimizes for efficiency.<p>AI pushes the equation toward a local maximum, but it&#x27;s a fallacy to assume it will reduce the number of seats for which you can charge.
GiorgioG11 个月前
This is just some drivel from yet another VC touting AI will change everything. Fuck off already.