@amolk@iamAlexTurnbull For d product that Alex is building they need to control the model and r accountable fr quality nd they run evals in the background to measure it. For a infra platform the model you suggest makes a lot of sense. Think VAPI and like platforms. They do allow you to pick and choose.
@mrclhnz@iamAlexTurnbull Good on you making it transparent! it is as simple as this. I like how figma tells you how much each turn cost you and how much is left.
@KeananBrown@iamAlexTurnbull CFO likes predictability hence they feel comfortable buying fixed seat based software but credit based pricing makes a lot of sense in many applications
@oakuzmenkov@iamAlexTurnbull Exactly, this is where people think credit is the issue while it is not knowing what consumed my credit - written about it here https://t.co/Hwjr5FT0H4
@scottbaileyBTV@iamAlexTurnbull They want to buy subscription cause that gives them predictability on spend. This is why a lot of companies are still doing hybrid. They add credit as part of subscription and allows you top up when you exhaust your quota.
@sturzstrom@iamAlexTurnbull Let me present a simplified counter argument- if a support vendor know that it takes on an average 3 turn to reach resolution then they can just charge for resolution by doing this - 3* per turn cost + margin. Fin Ai and others are doing this way.
@amolk@iamAlexTurnbull Could be a fair model but as a consumer it is too unpredictable cause underlying model cost changes in almost every couple of weeks.
@mark_ppc@iamAlexTurnbull Hey Marek, Give this a read this may help when you do your pricing. Also I will publish a research on how to price AI later this week. Will share that.