Figma, Google Workplace, Pitch, Coda, etc… all have the ability to work with others in real time. What’s the deal with not being able to work with my team unless the app in question is on the $129 / month plan?
This is clearly not a requirement to become a profitable company based on the examples from other SaaS products. Why is this the case with Bubble?
@alejandrowunderlich 
100% agree. Bubble is working on the pricing currently, hopefully they figure it out. See here also: Were bubble subdomains removed? - #6 by bubble.trouble
Part of the problem (as I see it in 2022) is Bubble figuring out if they are going to move more towards an application IDE company, a hosting platform, or some combination of both. These are competing agendas though, especially where it involves pricing.
I’m hopeful that they will see the value of removing paywalls related strictly to the development aspect of Bubble and charge more for the hosting/utilization of production applications.
I’ve been very vocal in my pricing suggestions that a per seat charge (something like $10/month) for additional collaborators is a no brainer. I don’t think they are working on this in the short term as they’ve said first priority is the capacity overages (which I agree with, don’t want my apps to break on the rare capacity spike) but it might be a medium term upgrade.
I simply makes sense. Why limit this? More people get involved, learn the platform, expand its capabilities, etc. Bubble benefits from additional collaborators. There’s no benefit to charging for the ability to deepen my and my team’s involvement in the Bubble platform.
@equibodyapp Even charging per seat doesn’t make that much sense to me. Bubble gains so much from gettign entire dev teams involved in the platform.
@alejandrowunderlich Exactly. What confuses me the most is the clear movement in the opposite direction of the current trends in the entire software development industry. Microsoft has open sourced and continues to move in the open source space because they understand that more developers means more money spent using their platform to run said code.
Further, it contradicts the every other day blog posts we read about how they are trying to get more people involved in the “no code” movement.
(Full Disclaimer: I am a huge fan and committed to the platform and I really believe they will figure out these pricing issues.)
A lot of platforms charge per user, I don’t have a problem with it. Makes good business sense.
You’re not wrong @equibodyapp , there’s certainly many business models that can be used here. The current one Bubble employs makes the least sense.
@bubble.trouble I have a similar level of commitment to the platform which is why seeing these self-sabotaging practices frustrates me so much. Bubble is the tip of the spear of the no-code movement, but I’m nervous that it will lose some of its prestigue to more nimble competitors.
I would agree with paying for every developer. If I need to pay for every user, that will not be helpful for my business.
