- Mark as New
- Follow
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report
Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions! You make a lot
of interesting points, including your comments on competitive
pricing relative to self-hosting FMS, passing economies of scale to
agencies, and trade-off's of license fees vs. subscriptions. Rest
assured that we are considering all of them as we work towards
creating a pricing model.
As you are already aware, most pricing models mirror cost
structures incurred by companies. Your example of car insurance
pricing maps very well to the price-cost alignment approach. In
most cases, the longer you keep an insurance policy the better
pricing you get. Part of reason behind better pricing is that there
is no (or very minimal) incremental cost incurred by the insurance
company to support you for each incremental year. The big
constraint in all of this is that you need to maintain your driving
record and any insurance claim will typically increase pricing. In
fact with every year the insurance company lowers your price
because they have a more accurate "risk profile" of you which maps
to their cost structure in supporting you.
But why am I mentioning all of this? The reason is that,
unlike the insurance product, a platform-as-a-service offering has
considerable on-going costs associated with managing, maintaining,
and upgrading the infrastructure. Usage (rather than time) is a
better metric for availing reduced pricing and as you mention we
will be sharing with you cost synergies due to economies of scale.
We hope that in most cases "Cocomo-powered" applications will
be so compelling that usage will increase with time, which will in
turn mean attractive pricing for agencies. Regardless, there are
other alternatives available to agencies so any pricing we propose
needs to be competitive and attractive for Adobe and our customers
to be successful long-term.
Views
Replies
0 Likes
Total Likes