The technical problem is not "we are operationally incapable of, say, getting someone else to underwrite insurance contracts". That's not a technical constraint, It's a business decision.
I get that the underlying issue is that your target consumer is whales who eat orders-of-magnitude pricing spreads as normal opex, and that anyone who comes in with a budget is barely a consideration. It's still absurd to pretend that pricing is too hard. Like, I'm not going to confidently assert "lol you can give up C, it'll be a rounding error anyway" but like, billing cycles are absurdly long on the scale of your technical constraints.
I don't think you've thought very carefully about this, because there are real technical problems here. If we did a cap feature, enabling it would involve disabling parts of our platform. We're just going to go back and forth on this, because I'm not going to write you an essay on this, and you're going to keep saying "it's a business decision" and I'm going to keep knowing you're wrong about that.
For the nth time on this thread: we don't make our quarterly nut billing people looking to spend $50/mo an occasional extra $1000. The people who actually pay the bills here do not want this feature.
They definitely want Accident Forgiveness, though. Which means it's going to cost us money to do this. And that's fine; they're growing, we're growing.
> If we did a cap feature, enabling it would involve disabling parts of our platform.
What I'm saying is that capping billing is not the same thing as shutting down parts of the platform. You're redirecting complaints about the latter by focusing on the difficulty of doing the latter in real time, which is granted but gross overkill.
The former is something that is not only doable, but something that already happens regularly in an informal capacity and nobody believes you don't have the data to price it.
Ok, so you think unintended usage should be costed out by the provider. Sure, T&S and support definitely have a handle on the topic. Now what? Because _today_ it’s already baked in to the P&L and pricing. You want the provider to give it to you as a line item that you dont control? Or to do actuarial evaluation of your footgun propensity to charge you more or less? Why? Im totally missing what solution your suggesting, the problem it solves, and why the provider _and revenue generating customers_ care.
> If you're really only looking to spend $50, we should put our cards on table and say that we're generally not making product pricing decisions with you in mind.
i think is what gave that vibe off. I was on a read-only phone in bed and saw the quoted message. got up and logged into the PC to think about what to say. It may be time for cloud providers to dissuade small users away, instead.
Hes telling you the reality. Cloud providers dont want to _dissuade_ hobbyist users. But thats not their target market and they will make business decisions based on the revenue generating customer profile. Thats just being frank and honest.
Major cloud-style companies dont drive significant revenue from your $50/mo cohort. And a $5/mo dev account is basically courtesy for the sales pipeline. The vast vast majority of revenue is “enterprise” sales with private pricing and spend in the hundreds of thousands to millions range.
