For me the pain point is that, like many others, they want to charge the same price for editors and read-only users.
Do the math with me to feel the pain:
-I use the product $50/month great
-My team use the product $300/month (6x50€) bearable if product really fit our need
-My team want to share access in read-only mode with the whole department 2500$/month (50x50) acceptable only if it's a core unavoidable product
Almost everytime there is no real technical difference between hosting service for use case 2 and 3. So I get that the business model intend to milk as much money from large organisations that shit gold and can't do basic math. But in the process you are cutting yourself from all small/medium company that just seek to pay a fair price.
To keep it simple I believe the basis should be that read only are always free or linked to paying (like get 50 read-only license for each paying editor licence). This better reflect real world situation.
That's a good point, I'll look into reducing the pricing for read-only users. We haven't had many companies with read-only users so it hasn't come up, but I think it makes sense.
Do the math with me to feel the pain:
-I use the product $50/month great
-My team use the product $300/month (6x50€) bearable if product really fit our need
-My team want to share access in read-only mode with the whole department 2500$/month (50x50) acceptable only if it's a core unavoidable product
Almost everytime there is no real technical difference between hosting service for use case 2 and 3. So I get that the business model intend to milk as much money from large organisations that shit gold and can't do basic math. But in the process you are cutting yourself from all small/medium company that just seek to pay a fair price.
To keep it simple I believe the basis should be that read only are always free or linked to paying (like get 50 read-only license for each paying editor licence). This better reflect real world situation.