Pricing Update ?

[craigbrass]

vBulletin 4 Forum - The Upgrade Dispute | The Law Professor

Another interesting article on the vBulletin fiasco. Matt Mecham over @ Invision Power is loving this

[supportskins]

I think per-seat licensing was on the cards.

[netaddict]

If I am considerably (hard to define what that is at present without knowing some more pricing details) financially disadvantaged by V4 I won't be impressed and would look at other options.

I've paid for my products, done the right thing, kept my support and upgrades up to date. Even paid for a year in advance recently.

I would expect Kayako to support those that have done the right thing by it and do the same thing back. Sadly that right these days seems to be less common as companies try and fatten their profits even further.

I don't for one minute disagree Kayako's costs and base has grown however consideration in my opinion must be given to those that have been with you for some time and more so those that have kept their support & upgrades package up to date.

Anyhow, my 2 cents on the topic for what its worth.

[vandango]

As long as the don't do a vbulletin v4 thing...... lol

[IanWild]

I don't have a problem with Kayako increasing their pricing overall - I always felt the software was very good value. With a mature product that has lots of credibility and good customer references then it's not such a risk to buy and as such Kayako can certainly justify a higher price for v4.

I would agree that per active user is fine for a hosted model, but I'm less sure about that with a self-hosted model - It certainly wouldn't work too well in our case. This is because there are a few 'full' users, but most of my users don't interact with the system on a day to day basis. With our deployment every staff member has an account, but the main purpose of that is that we can configure email alerts for tickets that could affect their role. I wouldn't want to pay a full license fee for a user who only needs that feature, and that would have put me off from purchasing the product.

A per seat pricing model like Salesforce's (ie $50+ a month per user) is counter-intuitive to effective use of the system as people end up sharing accounts anyway which does no one any favours.

Ian

[Jamie Edwards]

Originally Posted by IanWild

I would agree that per active user is fine for a hosted model, but I'm less sure about that with a self-hosted model

Note: This is not a final statement on our new licensing model which is still being refined, but it represents how things currently look.

You have some very good points.

As far as the 'owned' options go, we are planning to offer just a few licenses which include X number of seats, rather than pricing per-seat.

For example:

• 10 seats
• 25 seats
• 50 seats
• 100 seats
• Unlimited seats

We'll then aim to keep the entry price point for the average number of seats used by our customers roughly the same.

Based on current models, I am sure that the majority of customers will find they would have to pay less or pay the same as what they already do for a new owned license of ample seat capacity for their organization.

The prices we will set for the big licenses (100 to Unlimited seats) will still present enormous value and an opportunity for rapid return on investment for a large organization.

Of course, we'll present our new models for feedback before setting them in stone

[craigbrass]

Ah. Good to see you are keeping the unlimited seat option. This will guarantee us users who have paid for unlimited licences keep them!

Guess people should purchase now if they want a cheap unlim option!

[Master Merlin]

I have a feeling that this won't be of any value craigbrass as they will probably force us "owned license" customers into paying a giant "upgrade fee" + a giant "unlimited seats fee" to be able to keep our current "unlimited plan for V4".

[craigbrass]

I have made very clear previously that if we a) don't get to keep our unlimited staff desks and b) have to pay anything other than the 6 monthly maintenance renewal fee, I will be jumping ship (already seen another product that I would likely move my support to). No more spending time here posting, no updates to current applications and none of the several other applications I have in the pipeline. I know I won't be the only one, either.

vBulletin proved something a few weeks back - you CANNOT move the goal posts of a product when they have already been set. Look at the media backlash the company got. Hopefully Kayako will keep a level head and take strong notice of this.

Kayako's product goal posts are simple. Single one off fee + 6 monthly fee for updates. NO fee to go from V3 -> V4 for example - all included. This isn't just for Kayako - as I KEEP saying, this is the web software STANDARD.

[Jamie Edwards]

Originally Posted by Master Merlin

I have a feeling that this won't be of any value craigbrass as they will probably force us "owned license" customers into paying a giant "upgrade fee" + a giant "unlimited seats fee" to be able to keep our current "unlimited plan for V4".

We have never said anything to suggest this is even on the cards

Originally Posted by craigbrass

I have made very clear previously

Yes, including in this same thread

Originally Posted by craigbrass

this is the web software STANDARD.

There isn't really such thing as a 'web software standard', even conceptually.

[craigbrass]

We have never said anything to suggest this is even on the cards.

I am just making this clear just in case.

There isn't really such thing as a 'web software standard', even conceptually.

It is kind of a defined standard based on what a large amount of web based software companies do. Go take a look if you can't see this.

[Jamie Edwards]

Originally Posted by craigbrass

I am just making this clear just in case.

Just in case of what?

It is kind of a defined standard based on what a large amount of web based software companies do. Go take a look if you can't see this.

Perhaps you have seen similar things happen in the relatively tiny sphere of software you personally use, but this does not make it a 'defined standard' or even 'common industry practice'.

We're not going to hold ourselves to anything as superfluous or fictional as that - we are going to do what we do best, which is to benefit as many customers as possible, both current and prospective.

[craigbrass]

Just in case of what?

Just in case you did happen to be considering it. Thought that was clear.

Perhaps you have seen similar things happen in the relatively tiny sphere of software you personally use, but this does not make it a 'defined standard' or even 'common industry practice'.

You clearly don't know me and the scope of software I use daily, then. Your scope is obviously a lot smaller than mine if you don't know this is the defined industry standard for this type of software. I will leave it at this - you know my take on it and my position but I will wait to see the final price details.

[Jamie Edwards]

Originally Posted by craigbrass

You clearly don't know me and the scope of software I use daily, then.

But I can be pretty sure that the software you manage to use daily, or even manage to get through in a lifetime will be a tiny, tiny fraction of the software and web services that are currently and made available, all with varying models, policies and attitudes.

Do you have any citation for the 'defined industry standard'? Where has it been defined? Perhaps you mean 'undefined industry standard', which is to say it is implicit (and even then, it would be limited to a personal small sphere of experience).

As I said before, we're not going to hold back innovation (in our software, in our product line up and the structure of our pricing) just because X, Y and Z which you are familiar with do too. Your X, Y and Z will be different to another customer's, and so on. Industries change, our customers change and we need to adapt and remain flexible.

but I will wait to see the final price details

Indeed.

I am debating with you on the principle here, by the way. We have no plans to charge an upgrade fee for V4. This is not because of the fictional 'defined industry standard', but because we feel no need to make money from customers who have loyally kept with us and supported the development of this next generation of product.

We're going to push ahead according to our own philosophies, not according to some other companies'. That is all I am saying.

[Joost Sanders]

Maybe it's time for a "V4 preview X: pricing update" to avoid long discussions based on nothing but (wrong or right) assumptions, standards, etc.

Have to agree with Jamie though, there is no standard. And if the software is not just an upgrade but a completely new application with tons of new features, why not have a new look at the licensing model. I know I would.