←back to thread

Show HN: Typeform was too expensive so I built my own forms

(www.ikiform.com)
183 points preetsuthar17 | 2 comments | 10 Jul 25 09:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.54s | source

Hey HN,

I'm a solopreneur and run a web design agency.

I create open-source apps, but I also work as a freelancer and designer. I was accepting any new freelance project via forms on my agency website.

I was using Typeform, but as time went by and more people submitted forms, it got more and more expensive. That time, I thought to use Google Form, but it was way too blocky and looked very unprofessional on my agency website.

So I thought to build my own forms for my own usage, and it turns out it almost doubled form submissions and inquiry calls.

I was happy, so I thought to build it for everyone and make it open-source.

I added AI functionalities using Vercel AISDK. I can generate forms almost instantly using AI and also added analytics AI so that users can talk with their forms—more like talk with their analytics data.

I've been building this publicly, sharing updates on my X account (preetsuthar17)

I hope this product will be as helpful to you as it was for me. Would love your feedback pls

Preet

Show context
_pdp_ ◴[10 Jul 25 11:44 UTC] No.44519891[source]▶
The reason Typeform free tier limits are so strict is likely because they have run the numbers based on real usage data. I am sure those limits are designed to capture just enough free users who are likely to convert, while minimizing the risk of churn. It is tricky.

From my own experience, about two years ago we built an AI form builder tech demo on top of our platform. We open-sourced it (https://github.com/chatbotkit/example-nextjs-ai-forms) to see if there was community interest. Not much. Since it wasn't our core product, we pivoted and turned it into a low-cost Typeform alternative with unlimited forms - formshare.ai was born. And while we have seen some modest commercial success, I wouldn't claim it's anywhere near Typeform's scale.

The takeaway here is that for this project, even though it wasn't our primary focus, leading with open source and undercutting on price didn't prove to be an effective strategy. If anything, charging too little initially will only devalue the product and attract the wrong kind of users - the ones less likely to convert or stick around for the long term.

replies(2): >>44520362 #>>44527031 #
michaelbuckbee ◴[10 Jul 25 12:43 UTC] No.44520362[source]▶
The other reason for free limits is limiting abuse/weirdness from malicious users.
replies(1): >>44521676 #
summarity ◴[10 Jul 25 14:44 UTC] No.44521676[source]▶
Or even more important: pathological users.

Actually malicious users are rare. Pathological users have a bias to be the _most_ demanding users when actually paying _the least_ (or nothing). It's a drain on every step in the support funnel. But what drives the business are users that both have a large scale of use and still have growth potential.

the worst tend to be just above the free tier, on the lowest paid plan available. Raising the minimum is an effective way to reduce this pain.

replies(2): >>44525783 #>>44527400 #
1. immibis ◴[10 Jul 25 21:23 UTC] No.44525783[source]▶
It is interesting how receiving the greatest benefit for the lowest cost is considered pathological, yet also the entire basis for our economic system.
replies(1): >>44527410 #
2. tomcam ◴[11 Jul 25 01:01 UTC] No.44527410[source]▶

    It is interesting how receiving the greatest benefit for the lowest cost is considered pathological, yet also the entire basis for our economic system.
What I read from GP's comment was not that this was the tradeoff, it was that people who pay less than market value tend to be the most troublesome customers. I can tell you that holds true in any market I've ever consulted for or have used myself. B2B transactions tend to be much smoother than a visit to Popeye's on the average.