←back to thread

Huly – Open-source project management platform

(github.com)
466 points blacktechnology | 3 comments | 14 Oct 24 03:16 UTC | HN request time: 1.054s | source
Show context
dotty- ◴[14 Oct 24 04:05 UTC] No.41834073[source]▶
The pricing is very interesting. The company I work for pays $20k for Jira & Confluence and $20k for Slack every year. And this platform claims I can replace both of them for $3600/year? and it's open source? The marketing looks great, so I hope the platform is actually a good competitor. I'd be so curious to see what their revenue is every year.
replies(1): >>41834109 #
danpalmer ◴[14 Oct 24 04:13 UTC] No.41834109[source]▶
Basecamp is also the same price. SaaS pricing is all made up. If you're a high-margin SaaS company the idea of spending $40k/yr for this seems... fine. If you're a small business, or you operate on retail margins, you'd laugh them out of the room, and rightly so as there are great tools at far better prices.

The idea of every service charging $15-30 per user per month is a myth perpetuated by companies who themselves have that budget to spend out of their VC funding.

replies(4): >>41834527 #>>41834597 #>>41834661 #>>41836402 #
imranhou ◴[14 Oct 24 05:52 UTC] No.41834597[source]▶
Postman is one example - imagine spending 30 bucks a month on a tool that lets you call APIs.
replies(3): >>41834846 #>>41834942 #>>41839032 #
1. danpalmer ◴[14 Oct 24 07:00 UTC] No.41834942[source]▶
Not only this, but it's worse for the fact that it's in a web browser, vs just being a native app that could be sold once, or at least with a yearly subscription for maintenance at 1/10th of the cost.

The problem is that they realised they could make more money by trying to lock companies into a proprietary API definition platform – they want the design, testing, QA, documentation, etc, all to happen in Postman.

replies(1): >>41836155 #
2. rty32 ◴[14 Oct 24 10:33 UTC] No.41836155[source]▶
I mean, locking users into your platform is one of the most common ways companies make money and keep making money. And that works.

If you want an obvious example, look at Apple.

replies(1): >>41844419 #
3. danpalmer ◴[15 Oct 24 02:41 UTC] No.41844419[source]▶
I guess my point here is that being closed is directly against the goals of the technology. Apple's lock-in is either a side effect or potentially even beneficial to their goal of providing a good phone/computer/whatever, whereas commercial lock-in is fairly clearly opposed to creating an API ecosystem that is usable across a range of technologies/consumers/etc.