Recent posts in this topic
I was truly looking forward to upgrading to aC 1.0, but the pricing structure leaves me completely befuddled. It's not just the amounts, either; it's the fact that there hasn't been a public announcement of 1.0's complete feature set, and neither has the beta test even begun, let alone been concluded, so any community input or buzz on whether or not 1.0 would be worth shelling out the bucks for seems to have been skipped over. The amounts and limits seem like an arbitrary decision that didn't take into account what the market could actually bear.
I'd love to be proven wrong, of course, and I'll delay my purchasing decision until after I've had a good solid look at aC 1.0, but at this point in time, if I had to drop several thousand dollars on a Web-based project management and collaboration application that I had to host myself, I'd rather spend it on Copper. At least I'd get Gantt charts. :)
I'd love to be proven wrong, of course, and I'll delay my purchasing decision until after I've had a good solid look at aC 1.0, but at this point in time, if I had to drop several thousand dollars on a Web-based project management and collaboration application that I had to host myself, I'd rather spend it on Copper. At least I'd get Gantt charts. :)
Pro
I think you will find the pricing is being taken under _careful_ consideration. Your feedback is important, and I believe you have all been more than vocal.
What they need now is time to evaluate your feedback and decide on a suitable pricing model.
If you would like to help, provide constructive feedback on how you use aC, or plan to use it. On how many projects you work on per average.
What they need now is time to evaluate your feedback and decide on a suitable pricing model.
If you would like to help, provide constructive feedback on how you use aC, or plan to use it. On how many projects you work on per average.
Pro
It is very sad that ActiveCollab has been priced so high, I think the core complaint is that this was once open-source and free, to then dramatically swing to the opposite side is the main annoyance.
If you analyse the market (ignoring Basecamp), there's a wide range of pricing:
www.copperproject.com - this charges between $499 - $2,999 for the downloadable version to host on your own server
to
www.goplan.info - which has free to $100 per month.
Alas I'll be going elsewhere, which is a great shame as I've been with ActiveCollab from nearly the beginning.
I currently pay half the price to Basecamp at GoPlan with similar features, but I'll be wholehearted supporting the ActiveCollab split...
www.projectpier.org - which is and will continue to be open-source
Support it and turn it into what you wanted ActiveCollab to be.
If you analyse the market (ignoring Basecamp), there's a wide range of pricing:
www.copperproject.com - this charges between $499 - $2,999 for the downloadable version to host on your own server
to
www.goplan.info - which has free to $100 per month.
Alas I'll be going elsewhere, which is a great shame as I've been with ActiveCollab from nearly the beginning.
I currently pay half the price to Basecamp at GoPlan with similar features, but I'll be wholehearted supporting the ActiveCollab split...
www.projectpier.org - which is and will continue to be open-source
Support it and turn it into what you wanted ActiveCollab to be.
For what it's worth - I think the pricing should be based on number of users, not number of projects.
Small businesses like mine - with many small projects but few users - just can't afford your proposed pricing model.
Small businesses like mine - with many small projects but few users - just can't afford your proposed pricing model.
Pro
...in check
It's sad because, for some aspects, It remembers me the Mambo / Joomla days.
I think that Ilija should keep a full open source version of activeCollab.
As said before, SugarCRM and vTiger are good examples.
I'm sorry MarkA, but I think that there's no much space for early '90 Marketing strategy.
activeCollab gained its status because it was open source.
Want to change your mind? No problem, pay your tribute...
It's sad because, for some aspects, It remembers me the Mambo / Joomla days.
I think that Ilija should keep a full open source version of activeCollab.
As said before, SugarCRM and vTiger are good examples.
I'm sorry MarkA, but I think that there's no much space for early '90 Marketing strategy.
activeCollab gained its status because it was open source.
Want to change your mind? No problem, pay your tribute...
Pro
sccrwoohoo
on Sep 19. 2007. 12:37 pm
Here are some random thoughts:
Its crazy to think back to the story of aC -- it started out of looking at basecamp and saying, "this could be done easily" -- plus the original blog post (I can't remember where) mentioned what happened if a bunch of developers came together to create a basecamp but open source it.
I was talking to a friend and they talked about capturing this situation as a prime example of a business that is doing great things and has a ton of buzz (see Seth Godin) and then killing all of it because of a really bad situation. There could be a number of way to introduce pricing and then raise it over time to get to these rates, there could have been modules, plugins, etc.
Oh well, it looks like aC is going to remain firm in their prices from reading their final blog post. In the dream of the original post for aC (way back in future) maybe a group of developers should think about taking aC .71 and keep the open source moving forward. As I someone said, it feels like the Mambo / Joomla split.
We initially started looking at BaseCamp and CooperProject and felt while Cooper was pretty awesome we couldn't afford it and it felt slightly inflexible. We need something with the power of Cooper but within the pricing range of BaseCamp. In reality BaseCamp's pricing could be considered high if you think of the yearly costs that we pay, but because you pay it in small chucks it feels manageable.
Overall, I'm deeply sadden because as a small business with a solid number of active projects its a bit hard to swallow such a huge expense at one time. I think this is what most people are saying. I think most businesses and non-profits were looking at having aC as finally being that web project that creates such a buzz because its the all around awesome project that people buy it in droves, but with the pricing scheme its going to be limited to those businesses and non-profits with money laying around.
So from a business perspective is it better to have:
100 clients paying $2000 for an unlimited license and paying $400 a year for support
After 5 years, this would bring you: $200,000 in licenses, and $160,000 in support for a total of = $360,000
OR
1000 clients paying $1000 for an unlimited license and paying $200 a year for support
After 5 years, this would bring you: $1,000,000 in licenses, and $800,000 in support for a total of = $1,800,000
The second option would increase your revenues 5,000%, wow, now that's a business model, but at the end of the day it really depends upon the business model for aC. Reading all of the reports about BaseCamp and the number of clients they potentially have, 37Signals is making millions each year because they figure this out.
Lastly -- I think what most people are trying to say two things to the developers of aC:
1) We are sad at the sharp price increases, because most of us have really loved the spirit of this project. It wasn't the fact that there was going to be a charge, it was the high price of the charge.
2) The development has highly involved this community and then when it came to pricing it came across as here's the pricing and that's it. It seems so anti-open source.
I think we would all love an great resolution of this situation - only time will tell. I'm not giving up on aC, I'm just very hopeful and still a proud using of aC 0.71
bjs
Its crazy to think back to the story of aC -- it started out of looking at basecamp and saying, "this could be done easily" -- plus the original blog post (I can't remember where) mentioned what happened if a bunch of developers came together to create a basecamp but open source it.
I was talking to a friend and they talked about capturing this situation as a prime example of a business that is doing great things and has a ton of buzz (see Seth Godin) and then killing all of it because of a really bad situation. There could be a number of way to introduce pricing and then raise it over time to get to these rates, there could have been modules, plugins, etc.
Oh well, it looks like aC is going to remain firm in their prices from reading their final blog post. In the dream of the original post for aC (way back in future) maybe a group of developers should think about taking aC .71 and keep the open source moving forward. As I someone said, it feels like the Mambo / Joomla split.
We initially started looking at BaseCamp and CooperProject and felt while Cooper was pretty awesome we couldn't afford it and it felt slightly inflexible. We need something with the power of Cooper but within the pricing range of BaseCamp. In reality BaseCamp's pricing could be considered high if you think of the yearly costs that we pay, but because you pay it in small chucks it feels manageable.
Overall, I'm deeply sadden because as a small business with a solid number of active projects its a bit hard to swallow such a huge expense at one time. I think this is what most people are saying. I think most businesses and non-profits were looking at having aC as finally being that web project that creates such a buzz because its the all around awesome project that people buy it in droves, but with the pricing scheme its going to be limited to those businesses and non-profits with money laying around.
So from a business perspective is it better to have:
100 clients paying $2000 for an unlimited license and paying $400 a year for support
After 5 years, this would bring you: $200,000 in licenses, and $160,000 in support for a total of = $360,000
OR
1000 clients paying $1000 for an unlimited license and paying $200 a year for support
After 5 years, this would bring you: $1,000,000 in licenses, and $800,000 in support for a total of = $1,800,000
The second option would increase your revenues 5,000%, wow, now that's a business model, but at the end of the day it really depends upon the business model for aC. Reading all of the reports about BaseCamp and the number of clients they potentially have, 37Signals is making millions each year because they figure this out.
Lastly -- I think what most people are trying to say two things to the developers of aC:
1) We are sad at the sharp price increases, because most of us have really loved the spirit of this project. It wasn't the fact that there was going to be a charge, it was the high price of the charge.
2) The development has highly involved this community and then when it came to pricing it came across as here's the pricing and that's it. It seems so anti-open source.
I think we would all love an great resolution of this situation - only time will tell. I'm not giving up on aC, I'm just very hopeful and still a proud using of aC 0.71
bjs
Well since my other post was deleted, I guess he wants to keep all the complaints neatly contained in a single place as to not attract too much attention.
Well, I for one am disappointed. The ONLY reason I tried active collab, a largely untested and unproven system, was because it was open source. I'll probably stick with 0.7.1 and continue to use it, assuming i can keep it running.
I hope that you can reconsider your "pricing" to account for small businesses who can't afford an extra $2000 expense.
Well, I for one am disappointed. The ONLY reason I tried active collab, a largely untested and unproven system, was because it was open source. I'll probably stick with 0.7.1 and continue to use it, assuming i can keep it running.
I hope that you can reconsider your "pricing" to account for small businesses who can't afford an extra $2000 expense.
Staff
Ilija Studen
on Sep 19. 2007. 1:11 pm
ajwagner:Well since my other post was deleted, I guess he wants to keep all the complaints neatly contained in a single place as to not attract too much attention.
Reason why your post was deleted instead of simply merged with this topic was purely technical (merge function of this board is not working properly and manual database changes would take a lot of time because there is a few things that this forum is caching). It does not have anything to do with what you said... Plus I wrote you an email explaining what happened and why.
And yes, I do like one issue discussed in one topic, not 7 ;)
activeCollab Team Member
Folks, I don't really know what else can be said that has not already been. Ilija and the devs MUST know that the community here has strongly rejected the pricing scheme.
I think what we need now is communication from the devs that 1) They either are or are not changing the pricing model. 2) If they post the former, then we as a community need to give them a few days or so to regroup as a company to revise the pricing scheme. 3) If they choose not to revise the prices, then everyone needs to just move on or stick with what the devs are offering as a product.
We just need more communication from the devs of what their thought proccess is right now. Thus, we as a community can either continue to support this project or we can find closure for ourselves and move on to the work that each indivudual here is still very much responsible for at their own places of employment.
I think what we need now is communication from the devs that 1) They either are or are not changing the pricing model. 2) If they post the former, then we as a community need to give them a few days or so to regroup as a company to revise the pricing scheme. 3) If they choose not to revise the prices, then everyone needs to just move on or stick with what the devs are offering as a product.
We just need more communication from the devs of what their thought proccess is right now. Thus, we as a community can either continue to support this project or we can find closure for ourselves and move on to the work that each indivudual here is still very much responsible for at their own places of employment.
Pro
starrfallen
on Sep 19. 2007. 2:43 pm
Okay, what about this for consideration on the pricing scheme if you are dead set on an expanding price tree. I know someone said something about charging for users. What about the amount of users that are in your own company? As in, you are not charged for clients who use the software. I saw another similar project management solution doing this (I don't remember which).
This way, 1-man-shows, who barely have enough to pay their own salary, will be paying much less for the program than say, someone who can afford 10 salaries.
I think a well thought-out pricing scheme based on this model may be VERY appealing to your target audience. AND, it will give you an edge against basecamp for said target audience. It actually makes a lot of sense, as people who are working by themselves will obviously be making less than someone who has the income to justify, say, 3 employees, and a company with 3 employees will be making less than a company with 10 employees and so on. Also, that eliminates the problem with people having more projects than they care to archive.
But to be clear, the clients of the company would not affect the users. And you should make that clear anywhere that the pricing model is displayed.
This way, 1-man-shows, who barely have enough to pay their own salary, will be paying much less for the program than say, someone who can afford 10 salaries.
I think a well thought-out pricing scheme based on this model may be VERY appealing to your target audience. AND, it will give you an edge against basecamp for said target audience. It actually makes a lot of sense, as people who are working by themselves will obviously be making less than someone who has the income to justify, say, 3 employees, and a company with 3 employees will be making less than a company with 10 employees and so on. Also, that eliminates the problem with people having more projects than they care to archive.
But to be clear, the clients of the company would not affect the users. And you should make that clear anywhere that the pricing model is displayed.
