Pricing per team or per user?
Hi folks,
When paying for Teams is introduced, will this be per user, or per user per team? If I'm a member of two teams, will I need to pay twice? If it's per user exclusively, what will be the anchor? I nearly just signed up for a [companyname] team but with my work email address, before realising that it may well be email address which is the distinguishing factor for determining charging.
E.g:
User: tom@tom.com - member of toms+team and toms-work-team
vs
User: tom@tom.com - member of toms+team; User: tom@work.com - member of toms+work+team
Do both scenarios pay twice? Or does the first one pay just once as a single user, or do both pay once as the email address is not used to determine a subscriber?
Thanks,
Tom
1Password Version: Not Provided
Extension Version: Not Provided
OS Version: Not Provided
Sync Type: Not Provided
Comments
-
Hello small cheese,
Whoever owns each Team will be charged for all members, regardless of how many other Teams that person is a member of, if I understand it correctly.
0 -
The team owner pays for everything? That sounds like a bad idea...
It would feel to me like the individual should pay for their 1P4T subscription, and can that team member can be a part of as many teams as they like. Making the family co-ordinator pay for all the users in the family sounds painful.
In support of your current thinking, if a company wants its users to use 1P4T and wants to pay for all its staff to use it, then hey that's great for the user, their personal subscription is met by the company. I'm sure you can find a way of achieving that even if it is a 3 pipr problem.
Subscriptions need to be individual, and with my fairness hat on, I don't think a user who is in several teams should need to pay any more than once.
Overall it feels like you'll end up with a much more regular income stream from a switch to the subscription model for the vast majority of your users and will still be able to hit good returns by only charging one person once.
0 -
Hi @smallcheese,
I believe the concept is that indeed, a organization of some kind would be paying for its members to access Teams. I'm not exactly sure what kind of a group of individuals you're describing. A group of people who would want to share passwords and other data, but would at the same time would not be at all centrally managed? Be it a co-op, Family, corporation, government, you'll likely have an admin who manages payment and access to that information right?
If you work as a contractor or employee in two companies, each company is paying to access Teams and to have you access it so you can do work for them. It seems like it would be an outlier of a situation when someone said "please access this Team with my data on it, I think it will cost you X$ a month to do so."
I don't see a user who is on several Teams paying multiple times, except in your version where Team members have to pay for themselves. If you work for 3 companies than 3 companies are paying for that service. Just like if they want you to have a desk they each paid for a desk, chair and space to put it. :chuffed:
But maybe I'm missing some subtly in what you're thinking about. Can you clarify a bit as to what exact situation would have people collaborating and sharing information but would want to pay individually?
0 -
I don't really think your physical world comparison works too well here tbh... If I'm a consultant designer running websites for 4 different companies who are each sharing their details with me via 4 different teams, I'm being paid for 4 times by 4 different companies. I've not had to buy 4 different copies of OS X or whatever website editing tool I'm using or Adobe Photoshop.
The companies model, where the company pays a subscription, works great. They should be able to invite whoever to their team and get billed accordingly. It's when it's not large corporates that it's a bit difficult.
'My' model has individuals sign up to the service, who can then be a member of as many teams as they like. One person, one subscription, multiple team memberships.
An example of a family-based team:
Parent A runs the family team, and even though their kids are in their twenties and have their own jobs, the parent pays for the family subscription.
Parent A also runs a small business where a number of useful items are needed to be shared amongst the team, so Parent A needs to pay for a further subscription for the business.
Parent B looks after a neighbourhood kids' soccer club which has a website to let everyone know what's going on. Parent B pays for a subscription for them and some of the other parents who help run the club.
Parent B also has a full time job as a working a developer for their own small company. They need access to lots of different passwords for their job and so are in a team for this.
Child 1 is a member of the family team to help out the folks, but also has their own family team for them and their kids.
Child 2 is a member of the family team, and a member of the team for the company they work for.
Parent A = 2 teams (family, business) - pays for both
Parent B = 3 teams (family, business, soccer) - pays for 2 of 3
Child 1 = 2 teams (family x 2) - pays for 1
Child 2 = 2 teams (family, business) - pays for 0For the 4 people here you will receive 9 different payments one way or another, but some folks aren't paying at all for their subscription, and others are paying multiple times. To me, this seems a little strange, the weighting of payment responsibility looks out of shape.
Is Child 2 allowed to run the desktop and IOS apps as they are not paying for anything? Or does mere team membership allow all members to use all apps?
I appreciate that what you've created is "1Password for Teams" but I think a lot of use cases will find themselves wishing it was more "1Password Online for teams, and individuals who might belong to lots of different teams". It doesn't fit on a t-shirt, but I think once people are in a few different teams, some of which they can only access via the web due to restrictions, some of which they can access via the app, it starts to feel like this could be, for some people, creating a big mess.
0 -
Thank you for the feedback, @smallcheese.
It certainly would be nice to take all these cases into account. I'd love to do this and more. That would take time.
At the moment, we are hard at work trying to get just a simple billing process working. Once we are able to get it up and running reliably we could think about more :)
0
