I agree with this, I think by default it should actually be a team, and then the price just increase per number of additional members on the team, think about it, if the reason why they have the team on $150 is because having a team mode is expensive maybe because of the auth service they might be using, but it doesn’t really state any limits, so that means, I can have a team of anywhere from 5 to 1000 members and it would still cost the same amount, which doesn’t make that much sense… Also, what’s up with the premium regions, what does that mean?
This! Thank you for stating very eloquently.
ooooh, does that mean another potential adjustment on the pricing!?
In the beginning, my biggest concern was the huge gap in between the Free and the Individual Plan.
Free, states: “For getting started with and learning Fauna”
Individual: “For professional developers building production applications”
I missed the: " Pay 5$ for your side-project and contribute to our community - plan"
At first I though: That pricing is not properly thought out.
By now, I came to realize that the pricing is more then well thought out ! There is just no interest in having such a community.
The new pricing and the reaction to this thread sends a clear message.
Even the description of the plans says: “hobby projects? Who cares?”
@wallslide already mentioned: The Individual plan is not attractive for small start-ups either.
In my experience it is pretty common that u use a inexpensive plan while developing.
And later, if your idea works and makes money, you switch to more expensive plans.
That does not work, if the less expensiv plan, has just a part of the features.
My conclusion: Fauna focuses mainly on the Team Plan. It probably is the one with that brings the most revenue and is quite profitably at the same time. Visiting the pricing page, you will see that the Team plan is even highlighted.
I believe that the bussiness Plan is the most profitable and the Individual is there to boost the revenue. (Only my personal assumptions)
And that’s pretty much it. Fauna is aiming for reliable, good paying long time costumers.
The reaction to this thread shows that there is no will to change this attitude.
You know what: I am totally fine with that! That is a reasonable strategy.
But the old free tier, made FaunaDB appear in a different light.
I don’t know, if there was a change in strategy, triggered by personal changes and stuff.
But it was never clearly communicated.
That leaves me, with a bad feeling.
And it kind of remindes my at my fishing trips - Where you start by catching some small fishes, only to use them as bait for the big ones.
Reposting here from other thread as it was advised this thread is more relative.
a) filled in support ticket - did not any confirmation to email;
b) tried to login to community slack - slack told me I need to have @fauna.com email to join - what?
c) signed up for forum (this went smooth - phew);
just to say that giving alpha feature(and this has nothing to do with fauna - auth0 RBAC functionality is essentially in alpha yet, read Update on Authorization Core RBAC roadmap - Auth0 Community) for a test I need to pay 150$ without trial options is just as crazy as it can get.
Something’s essentially wrong. I will pay this 150$ because I value my time just to give it a try, but I do hope you will issue instant refund.
My honest recommendation - don’t scare devs away just because of lack of time for implementing normal incremental onboarding/acquisition process. Check out auth0 themselves how they do this - they are great at this.
Maybe a good compromise would be a $0-minimum pay-as-you-go plan that is isolated to a single region and limited in feature set (eg: no TTL).
I was too hoping to see the Auth0 and other auth integrations at a lower plan. And a base metered plan like the previous Utility plan. Fauna is still amazing though and worth the money - just please don’t hike the prices again in the next 6 months!
I believe that’s the point: it’s awesome when you actually need that much operations/computation. Visibly, it’s not what most bootstrapped products require here though
The new pricing model is upsetting for hobby projects and very early-on startups using the founders own funds (that’s my case), especially in countries like Brazil, that exchange rates gone bad due to COVID and the political chaos for us.
I’ve built a whole idea of a small startup around the pay-as-you-go pricing model and free tier (during beta testing), and then, they change the whole pricing model without any feedback from the community?
Sooooooooooooooooooooo true. I am migrating to other solutions.
Incredible, for me, in 2021, the pay as you go plan is required. I can’t accept something like 101K reads/month and pay 25$ for 1K reads.
From 100K/day free to 100K/month…
I can’t pay for something I don’t even use, not so much, not now, not in this way.
It was still nice to play with fauna
Algolia had similar pricing issues, here’s how they solved it:
In the past, they offered a 30-day free trial and then $40/mo, or something similar. But this was bad because it meant you couldn’t use Algolia unless you knew your scale would justify the project and if it didn’t, you’d have to cut that expense quickly. Similarly, they had a hard-to-understand ‘ops-based pricing’, which meant devs wasted a lot of time trying to optimize their queries unnecessarily.
Algolia’s new pricing update this year totally solved their pricing problems: they ended “ops based pricing” and started counting “search requests”, which are easier to understand. They added a free tier. They offer reasonable pay-as-you-go pricing.
Hope Fauna considers similar: to simplify, keep the free tier, and offer pay as you go pricing above the free tier, with minimal feature gating.
As a dev, I think most people are looking for pricing that lets them learn one thing (your service instead of others) and hopefully pay to scale on it, imo.
Best of luck.
There are some good ideas here and such feedback is very welcome. However, keep in mind that Fauna allows for more complex queries than a search engine. If we counted only ‘queries’ than people would optimize to take advantage of that since you can literally do everything you want in one query. The people who keep their queries light would then pay the price since queries would be naturally overpriced to compensate for that. The same counts for compute, maybe one day FQL will be that complete that you can write a bitcoin (although that time has passed) miner in it.
Although I agree that we have to find ways to make it simpler, sometimes complex pricings are also the most correct pricing. The flip side of more complex pricing is that if your queries are light, you pay less, if you retrieve fewer data, you pay less, if your queries require less compute, you pay less. If you use indexes instead of Map/Gets you pay less (which is probably the most complex to understand, but it translates to how much effort Fauna has to put in to retrieve your data)
We already return the read/write/compute ops for each queries in the header. I’m wondering whether the missing link might be a pricing explainer rather?
Fauna already has the free tier that’s important to making it a default tool choice. But even if you keep the ops-based usage pricing, it’s clear that the ‘min price per month’ of usage & feature gating are what people don’t like.
For some, a $7/mo managed Postgres at Render or similar might be “good enough” to start and then at that point, they’re locked into Postgres or SQL. Someday Cloudflare is going to come out with a distributed DB built on durable objects and hopefully Fauna will have grown its user base before then so that “just keep using Fauna” becomes the easier choice.
Personally I find the ops pricing makes sense. It’s easy to get an idea of how expensive a query is by looking at the info in the shell of the dashboard.
After a while it becomes more intuitive and you plan ahead with efficiency in mind.
Cloudflare already has a distributed KV database and I’m certain it will release a more complete distributed DB offering, probably this year.
As much as I love Cloudflare, I’m skeptical it will have as many features as Fauna. I could be wrong but I doubt they will have a query language or authorization layer as powerful.
One problem I’ve experienced with Workers KV is that unless you have tons of traffic most of your requests will not come from the edge. They have so many PoPs (points of service) around the world that 2 users that are somewhat close geographically (eg: Paris and London) will not use the same PoP. I think this is solved using their Argo router which can fetch data from a nearby edge location instead of going to the origin (or central location for KV) but then requests become much more expensive.
One problem I’ve experienced with Workers KV is that unless you have tons of traffic most of your requests will not come from the edge
Getting a bit off topic, but they’ve stated Durable Objects would be the primitive used for a future DB, for consistency reasons, not KV. D.O.'s are stored in the CF node nearest its most frequent use. Agreed it wouldn’t be as feature complete as Fauna initially, but it’d have basic CRUD which most need and will likely be Fauna’s biggest competitor for a geographically-distributed, serverless-first database. Guaranteed it will be aggressively priced with a free tier and probably usage based with $5 min like Workers Bundled. Not as feature complete…probably. But sufficient…we’ll see.
Why not just do that and maybe keep discounts for higher usage, if needed for very high usage? I think it’d make lots of people happy.
Also could consider $300/mo support for enterprise, SSO, or something. IDK, I’m a one man shop, not an enterprise, so I don’t know what entices them. Pricing is hard, we can’t fault Fauna for iterating on pricing, but hopefully they keep in mind certainty for early users they won’t be priced out or feature gated after building on it, for peace of mind.
Best of luck y’all.
Durable objects are exciting, there might indeed be something built upon that. There is however a huge development gap between a durable object and a database. Cloudflare mentions in one of their blogs that they do see the possibility that this serves as the foundation of a database, not necessarily built by Cloudflare itself. However, I don’t see a company (except Cloudflare itself) spend millions to construct a database on top of it and be tied to one specific technology (durable objects) and one execution environment (CloudFlare workers) if I’m not mistaken. What I might see happening is that either KV store or Durable Objects become an underlying storage layer for a database that allows you to switch storage layers.
I wouldn’t say this is necessary competition. Fauna + Durable Objects can make a lot of sense for caching in-use data in a worker or (although you already have real-time objects with Fauna) rendering a specific object super real-time once you have fetched it (e.g. because you know that users that will collab on this object are colocated in the same region, and you are using workers already). You can’t really say that they are geographically-distributed, rather geographically-moving which defeats the purpose for people who want to have clients from different regions interact with each other. I don’t know what CF is planning so who knows, they might be working on a more complete database solution. Still, Durable Objects might seem appealing for many new users (and they are, but they might seem appealing for the wrong reasons as well), the step up to a real distributed database is huge. My understanding of them is limited, but I see them rather as a clever way of sharing context between different Cloudflare workers and having a real close to the function sharing of an object. To go beyond that needs relations, indexes, query composition, transactions over multiple objects, conflict resolution, disaster recovery, a sane security layer and all the (UI) tooling a database requires.
What I learn from this, the task of selecting the right database in post 2020 is going to be incredibly hard since it becomes almost impossible to learn for each database (and/or storage/caching/cms mechanism) is doing behind the scenes, the landscape is becoming more diverse than it ever was . Which is a good thing, but we’ll all need to do even more reading
I’m just a small fish, OK to be bait for bigger fish. I will die of old age before I ever make enough money where the $25 per month looks affordable. But I’d be happy to pay $10 a month if I exceed the free plan.
Fauna should perhaps create a bunch of new plans, that would not be a four-tier system with three-feet-tall height differences between payments ( 0 - 25 - 150 - 500 ). I would personally love to see a $10 plan.
I was surprise to see that 100k read ops of “Free plan” is not that much. I’m working on a hobby / community project. Just by adding the master/initial data for my website, I have already used 70k read ops. And I don’t have that much data yet, roughly 400 documents.
I’m willing to spend $10 a month for some hobby / community projects, but $22.5 a month is too much.
Hopefully Fauna team will revise their pricing plans. Otherwise I will have to migrate to another DB solution, which will be a pity, because I really like FaunaDB.