Opensource bait and switch?

[MayurVirkar]

Hello,
I don't mind creators keeping a few features for paid versions. Of course, everyone needs to earn. I totally get that.
But restricting open-source, community-edition, crowd-contributed versions to just 20 users? That, too the is self-hosted?
That doesn't seem fair.

[aptkingston]

Hi @MayurVirkar.

If you've had so much success with Budibase that you have more than 20 users who use it actively, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that Budibase is providing you with enough value that it might be time to consider giving something back.

If you're looking to trial an app with a much larger user base then you're welcome to create a public app, which won't need user accounts for end users.

We do also offer discounts for eligible nonprofit organizations if that's relevant to you.

That doesn't seem fair.

I would argue that getting a fully functional low-code app builder for 20 users, with unlimited apps, unlimited datasources, SSO and RBAC for abolutely nothing is more than fair - it's generous 😄

[JCV67]

This discussion shouldn't have been closed. We are right, you did not keep your promise. As I said before, I also did a lot of research before choosing Budibase and after that I spent many hours on the learning curve. I like budibase and I'm not in position to drop it. You should think it further and change your decision. You can always change the users limit number and drop functions restrictions. Let's say a 100 users limit on self hosted, it would still only benefit small companies and it would be good for your discussion forums. We are the ones who are fast applying new updates and the ones that like to spread the word.

[aptkingston]

@XeroxDev you're right that the screenshot you provided is outdated - we'll fix that. But that absolutely is not representative of our "advertising" of plan limits. Those limits are clearly stated on our website, and while I agree that we need to update this screenshot, finding a single example of an outdated screenshot and saying it warrants jail time is a little excessive. Yes there is a user limit, and we are extremely up front about it. It's even underlined and highlighted on our pricing page, with a tooltip describing exactly what the user limits are.

The Budibase quote you referenced about is being open source is entirely correct. Most of Budibase is GPL v3, but the libraries that run your apps are MPL licensed (even more permissive).

We don't state we are entirely free, and being free is not the same as being open source. We are self-hostable and the majority of Budibase (apart from the paid features) are open source. You're absolutely welcome to fork the code and change it how you see fit, including removing restrictions in the open source code if you're able to do that. The only thing you can't do is access the paid features, which are in a closed source repository and are minified/obfuscated for self-hosted installations.

To address your points directly:

Requesting the same amount for the self hosted and cloud variant, despite you don't have to pay for others self hosted instances

I've touched on this in previous replies - check my comment about Photoshop for example. We've spent a lot of time and money building the product, and Budibase is providing you with value no matter where it runs. Just because it isn't running on our servers does not mean we deserve no compensation for building and offering this software. Self-hosting is also more commonly a requirement for larger companies with tighter data regulations.

The misleading advertisement (which is even ILLEGAL in a lot of countries (the one I'm living in as example. You would get fined up to 6 figures here or even jail time for such things))

We will update this screenshot, but as I've already said we do not lie about limits - they are clearly stated on the website which is the actual source of truth for this information rather than a picture buried in the docs.

This is extremely shady behavior I don't like.

You're entitled to that opinion, but I hope my explanation helps alleviate that somewhat. We absolutely do not attempt to mislead users, and I genuinely don't believe there's any evidence here of shady behaviour. We have a limit on the user count on free plans, and we tell you about it in advance.

I can't even understand why users (and groups etc) are restricted on self hosted, because you have literally no downsides of it being unlimited.

Because we need to make money as a company somehow, and we choose to do that by encouraging moving to paid plans whenever you have so much success with Budibase that you want to roll it out to more people. It's not about the direct cost to us - It's about striking a balance between offering enough for free to allow users (and indeed companies) to use Budibase successfully, while also ensuring there is eventually some reason to transition to a paid plan. Limits of scale are a very fair way to do this. Groups are again just a convenience feature which provides more benefits at scale - using groups when you might only have 5 users doesn't provide much value, but if you have 500 users then they can save you a lot of time.

[JCV67]

Sorry but when I started, and log after that, there where no user limits nor where they announced. You should takes this in consideration. Also, think that MS 365 office suit includs Power Apps and the basic plan price is similar to Budibase's. You should have a different plan for older self hosted users.

[XeroxDev]

@aptkingston

@XeroxDev you're right that the screenshot you provided is outdated - we'll fix that. But that absolutely is not representative of our "advertising" of plan limits. Those limits are clearly stated on our website, and while I agree that we need to update this screenshot, finding a single example of an outdated screenshot and saying it warrants jail time is a little excessive.

Great! And: I never said due to that screenshot alone it warrants jail time. I said that in my country wrong advertisement may result in fines or jail time. And you clearly advertised it in a lot of places.

Even your Co-Founder "jo_ranamo" went around on reddit and advertised it with "unlimited users, free forever" etc. (But hey. The entire account and all the comments were deleted by the user itself)

The Budibase quote you referenced about is being open source is entirely correct. Most of Budibase is GPL v3, but the libraries that run your apps are MPL licensed (even more permissive).

That might be correct, but it was advertised as self hosted OSS, free forever. Oh, and the funny part: Setting up the project and using the non-private stuff only results in an unusable instance, because a huge amount of stuff has to be re-implemented.

We don't state we are entirely free, and being free is not the same as being open source. We are self-hostable and the majority of Budibase (apart from the paid features) are open source. You're absolutely welcome to fork the code and change it how you see fit, including removing restrictions in the open source code if you're able to do that. The only thing you can't do is access the paid features, which are in a closed source repository and are minified/obfuscated for self-hosted installations.

👍

I've touched on this in previous replies - check my comment about Photoshop for example. We've spent a lot of time and money building the product, and Budibase is providing you with value no matter where it runs. Just because it isn't running on our servers does not mean we deserve no compensation for building and offering this software. Self-hosting is also more commonly a requirement for larger companies with tighter data regulations.

You can repeat it as often as you like. The PS example is literally the worst and most unrelatable one you could've used. There were so many examples which would've been better and yet you're using a PAID ONLY, CLOSED SOURCE, PREMIUM SERVICE from ADOBE, which you can't even self-host as an example? What?!

We will update this screenshot, but as I've already said we do not lie about limits - they are clearly stated on the website which is the actual source of truth for this information rather than a picture buried in the docs.

• Great, thanks again! (But you should just recapture the image, instead of just cropping it. The cropped version is kinda unsatisfying :D
• "The actual source of truth" is your website? Got it!
  
  (Oh. And the "Community Plan" states "FREE FOREVER")
  That's just one site of your official page stating it. There're also many others, but this will bloat that post, especially if we would referencing official statements from your Co-Founder and members.
• "picture buried in the docs". Really? This is the first page a user finds if he searches for activating the self hosted version! It's also the ONLY page speaking about that, so it's not buried, it's literally the most important one and IIRC you're even linking it yourself. Also: Burried would imply it beeing multiple pages down and yet it's instant visible and screaming "click me"
  

You're entitled to that opinion, but I hope my explanation helps alleviate that somewhat. We absolutely do not attempt to mislead users, and I genuinely don't believe there's any evidence here of shady behaviour. We have a limit on the user count on free plans, and we tell you about it in advance.

I believe you that it's not intentional and yet it seems intentional and shady. But thanks for your permission to have other opinions lol. But jokes aside. There would be so many other possibilities to make money and I would even help you find them, because you deserve it, but restricting things which were advertised as "free forever" and making them suddenly non-free. That's why I'm acting like this. You could develop incredible features everyone would love and put them behind a paywall. You could implement QOL features premium only, you could even offer services just for the cloud paid version. Or even make a "pay/donate what you want" license for self hosted. I would be fine with all of it and would even consider giving you money. But you broke the only OSS rule no one should break. Putting something "free forever" behind a paywall.

Because we need to make money as a company somehow, and we choose to do that by encouraging moving to paid plans whenever you have so much success with Budibase that you want to roll it out to more people. It's not about the direct cost to us - It's about striking a balance between offering enough for free to allow users (and indeed companies) to use Budibase successfully, while also ensuring there is eventually some reason to transition to a paid plan. Limits of scale are a very fair way to do this. Groups are again just a convenience feature which provides more benefits at scale - using groups when you might only have 5 users doesn't provide much value, but if you have 500 users then they can save you a lot of time.

Like mentioned above. I understand, accept and agree that you have to earn money. But also like mentioned above: There would've been other ways to do that.

The groups thing is fine, it was just an example. You can, of course put it behind a paywall. I respect that.

I'm not here to "destroy", insult, other anything else. I just wanted to explain my opinions to you and hope you reconsider putting "free forever" things behind a paywall. (And yes. I would even argue like that if you'd set the limit to 1 million.)

[aptkingston]

@XeroxDev the community plan is indeed free forever. That has not changed, and will not change. Imposing a 20 user limit does not change the fact it's free - by definition, charging for it would.

Thanks again for the contribution of the outdated screenshot which has now been rectified. I think this conversation has gone slightly off topic, so I'm going to lock this thread for now as it has served its purpose. We appreciate the feedback, and you're always welcome to create new discussions in future if you have any further questions.

Edit - I think it's also worth mentioning that the page you linked from our website is a blog post from last year and not our up-to-date pricing information, which can always be found on our actual pricing page. But please do let us know if you find inconsistencies in our live content, like the docs image you mentioned previously.