I’m thinking of using orgs to isolate tenants for an application I’m building. I guess this makes sense as each tenant can have their own isolated network.
Your info reads like each org gets their own free quota of 3 shared VMs and traffic. Is that correct?
If this is correct, would you call it a good use case if I create many many free orgs with low to no traffic and a small number of tenants who would use the service more and exceed the free limits.
It sounds very interesting to me if I can provide a free tier for my users. I just want to make sure this doesn’t violate your rules and you’re not going to change the pricing model to prevent this.
Btw. I want to manage all services myself, I don’t want to overwhelm my users with managing services.
Isolating tenants by org makes a lot of sense. Feel free to make orgs for your customers and run their apps in there. We might change the free tier down the road, but we’ll give you lots of notice, and we should have proper scale-to-zero by then anyway.
I appreciate you asking though! Normally we’d be wary of people “reselling” the free tier but I think what you’re doing is interesting enough it makes sense. In most cases, we’d rather have the relationship with the customer directly so we can actually convert them into paying users.
I understand what you’re saying. That said, it’s in my best interest to convert them to paying customers too. The user I want to attract wouldn’t be interested in managing infrastructure. So I guess it’s a win win as long as you can provide some way of offering free tiers at mass to attract many users.
For what it’s worth, I would not offer a free tier for most kinds of products. We almost have to because we’re selling infrastructure, and that’s what devs have come to expect, but free tier customers very rarely convert.
At our last company, we ran a free tier for a few years and then shut it off in favor of free trials. It worked much better at the time, and is what I’d start with for most types of products.