I’ve been experimenting with fly over some time. I like its capabilities, developer experience and the innovation I have seen in this time.
Broken use case
As you’ve grown, pricing has changed a number of times. As someone that began with an idea of how I wanted to use fly, its 6PNs and anycast, pricing changes have now broken my use case.
My goal was to manage one or more orgs per customer, using each orgs private network for absolute isolation for environments, access and cost control. I would run or expose solutions within these based on flycast and other features. Costs are easier rolled per org than to have multiple customers in a single org, and the way to segment apps within the same organization for isolation does not float my boat. Fly’s current networking uses the org id in routing requests and because it is structurally baked in, I require multiple orgs per customer.
As it currently stands, I would have a base cost of between $29 and $180 USD ($250 CAD) with up to 6 private networks per customer. It’s completely out of the question at this point.
Built in service pricing is weird and harmful: Fly’s value is infrastructure
Pricing is always a difficult issue, but imposing a minimum cost per organization equates to an infrastructure tax for email support. You ought be able to use an org for the services it provides, scale resources of an org to zero if need be, and know that you are not going to be eaten alive by a consumption tax to support another fly customer’s service requests. I do believe it is fair to charge for the storage of filesystems of stopped instances, that you are in the process of introducing.
On the way I wished to use fly, operating at least an organization per customer provides no more value for support for a single org.
Coming from just about any other cloud, support is pretty much non existent aside from billing.
Developers are generally expected to work with APIs and documentation supplied to generate solutions. I believe the role of Fly in this context is to ensure that docs are current and infrastructure doesn’t break this contract. Ultimately, Fly customers are coming from some other cloud to consume your services. The value of Fly is infrastructure.
An alternative: obtain service credits on demand at market pricing
For organizations that require hand holding, perhaps an alternative is to sell consulting hours on demand so people can obtain service credits. That way, you can automate booking and charge an appropriate rate for contact and speed of service. You would quickly come to a place where you understood how many hours are needed to service those requests. It would also have the effect of rooting out higher volume, low quality requests that tie up valuable technical resources just because people feel support is already baked into their account. You don’t need to be Heroku. Just be Fly and great at pushing on the infrastructure you’ve been building and work out the issues.
In that respect, I’ve seen more where an issue tracker is needed than service requests. It is often the case that several people have the same issue when a bug or behavior has been introduced. Email support and the community forum both suck compared to the visibility and transparency of issue tracking.