My point is that launching with a free tier and applying limits later has been an effective monetization strategy for many successful startups.
Gitlab might be a special case because of open source projects; providing a service and then asking for money from people that in many cases work for free does feel a bit pointless.
That's usually called bait and switch.
1: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX/
2: https://time.com/6198354/netflix-subscribers-loss-second-qua... (If you have JavaScript disabled remove position: fixed from the body to read, or https://archive.ph/tGzqK)
Yet another example of how we've normalized dishonesty and deception.
Also, how is that deception? Most startups never claim that their plans will be forever free and unlimited.
How I see it, free comes with risks. If you want less risk, choose a paid service.
(Obviously the situation is different for open source projects that don’t have money and that are already run by volunteers.)
Either you offer a generous free tier in perpetuity and get all the nice things that come with that, or you don't, and build goodwill some other way.
This idea that time is money, that everything a company offers should be compensated, is bullshit. The tech industry -- especially startups -- got to where they are today all the goodwill of nerds and early-adopters, and they would constantly ply them with free stuff so that it would plant seeds in their minds that would later blossom to convince the decisionmakers to buy their product.
But it also had the effect of empowering entire generations of future tech workers, by giving them hands-on experience that later translates to useful employees and loyal customers. Microsoft is said to have a similar idea by not cracking down on Windows piracy too hard ... better they're running a pirated copy of Windows than Linux or Mac!
So yes, companies should give their stuff away for free. There is too much focus on dollars and money with how they operate, it's like we forget that they are made of people and that they SERVE other people (their customers). Everything having its price is an extrene sense of entitlement on behalf of management
Offering free hands-on experience seems like a version of “work for exposure”; even if it can be effective at times for a given company, I’d say on a larger scale it makes the market less healthy.
E.g. it might give unfair advantage to larger companies that can afford to offer free services; smaller businesses might have more trouble with growth and getting recognised.
(Again, I’m not talking about targeting an audience where open source projects are the majority, but about a more general scenario.)
It's important for your company's messaging that you be accurate here.
I'll also take the opportunity to express my disappointment that GitLab has decided that Microsoft's offering should be the home of any open-source project of significance; I think that's bad strategy. But it's not my call.
You are correct that in order for projects to be eligible they must not be seeking profit. This is listed as a requirement on the program page: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/join/.
You can see many of the open source projects of significance who are part of the program here: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/partners/
> While most partners are also members of the GitLab for Open Source Program, not all are (as some partners are commercial open source entities and therefore ineligible for the program).
Source: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati...
You can see many of the open source projects of significance who are using GitLab here: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/partners/
Will a individual developer be able to create a repo for a small FLOSS project under these terms? I don't see the option there.
And before somebody says that a small project will fit a free tier, remember that this entire discussion was born from the fact that free tiers can be removed 5 minutes from now if Gitlab wants to.
The requirements are:
- use an OSI-approved license
- not seeking profit
- be publicly visible
> Program members must renew their memberships annually.
> Upon acceptance to the GitLab for Open Source Program, all program members are subject to the GitLab for Open Source Program Agreement.
Source: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati...