Every company on Earth is exploring this tech and if we don't give them strong signals when they fuck it up we are just dooming our future selves to this garbage.
Better to not tell them and just boycott them.
Those companies who don’t push the boundaries on how bad they can treat their (potential) customers deserve to be rewarded.
Where do you work that this is an effective strategy?
In my experience telling a vendor something is broken wastes my time and has no effect on the vendor. I don't know whether sales don't care or sales can't make dev changes. The only exception is when I can contact the devs and I know the devs have a history of fixing problems.
What they have. Ticket. Feedback.
If they see tickets with certain feedback scores, some rep's score will go down and some manager's score will go down and if enough people do this (it literally takes a 1-2 digit amount of people in most cases), someone will raise an eyebrow and ask some questions and read the <99 responses that came in about this topic.
Since so few people actually respond to feedback, anyone who does has a massively outsized impact on the numbers that get reported inside the company, and the messages that get passed around inside the company.
I should clarify that when I say "Feedback" it does not mean yelling at a support rep, it means responding with a low score or a frowny face or whatever metric in their system that indicates quantitative disapproval.
Just do something instead of nothing. Mark as spam. Post a negative thing. Email them. Post on social media. Just do something instead of nothing. Show your disapproval out loud to everyone instead of silently accepting it and moving on. Please.
2) Why should the victim be expected to waste their time.
If I posted a small complaint about every broken interaction, it would be a firehose. Imagine complaining about every website popover or pothole...
Also, being a victim is by definition a waste of time because you didn't ask to be a victim. You can be a victim and quietly take it, letting it perpetuate and condemning both your future self and those you care about, or you can be a victim and fight back, refuse to take it, and defend your future self and those you care about.
This behavior is that of a bully and abuser. Bullies and abusers will only listen to a slap in the face, not to quiet submission.
Bullies want you to fight back because now you're playing their game according to their rules which they know how to win and you implicitly authorise them to hurt you and often you have handed them a moral highground excuse they can spit back at you later. Bullies don't "listen" to a slap in the face, instead they escalate further: good luck!
Fighting is high risk. I do believe in fighting when necessary and here is a fantastic article that perhaps supports your view: https://radicalcontributions.substack.com/p/escalation-theor...
To win against a bully often requires changing the game so that you can win by other rules.
However not everyone has the ability/practice to handle conflict - a friend talking back with a female bully recently had a panic attack which was a horrific side effect for them.
"Saw on LinkedIn that you spoke Spanish. I've heard that the way "¡Qué chévere!" brings such energy and brightness to a conversation is uniquely charming. Have you had a chance to practice it recently?"
"Develop a compliance automation tool that adapitates to changing regulations, reducing overhead costs while ensuring secure and efficient investment programs."
No human would ever see my "limited working proficiency" of Spanish on LinkedIn and say something like the first line! And the second? "Adapitates" is not a real word, it's a hallucination. https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1d8gc6x/did_chatgp...
Sales isn't the problem, and most people are tolerant of some level of sales. I've gotten unpersonalized cold outreach from a data replication company that actually made me interested in the product, because it was short, to the point, and (as far as spam emails can be), authentic.
Or maybe it's an ancient dictionary. I was kind of surprised at the sizes of ]dictionaries I could find while trying to test out a personal project.
i wonder if there’s a world coming where the oss and the company become the same person.
Love, Oracle
The only product I really want to punch in credit card info and GO is commodity software (e.g. AWS EC2 or a domain registration service.
I think wires sometimes get crossed in pricing/sales models, where an enterprise product gets priced like commodity software ... but that's usually a sign the company is immature. There shouldn't be a sales team for software that costs 2-3 figures. Software costing 5-6+ figures absolutely requires people in the sales/onboarding process, because a big part of what I'm paying for is support.
I think the problem is that we rarely want to know “can you meet this use case”, but rather “how well can you meet this use case”, and that’s hard to assess without putting your hands on the software.
If your sales department is staffed by people who got hired on Monday, and are on the phone by Friday, then frankly they're not worth much.
I've seen the opposite though where sales folk know more about the software than support folk. They're equipped to help you with choices, but also understand limits and high-cost areas. Yes you absolutely can get Custom Reports, but we absolutely charge for that. And the data you're looking for is on this built-in report....
Dealing with a good salesperson, who knows their stuff, and understands that truth and trust are important, is an amazing thing.
I don't really do these sale pitches often, but it's a similar mentality for a different reason. I simply want anything communicated in writing in case they try to say yes to put a foot in the door, but the small details say no.
I'm not a doctor, and even if I was, I'll never be able to help them purely over the phone if they are "lying bleeding somewhere" and I'm not around. If my house is burning down and I'm away, what am I going to do about it remotely that a phone call will solve? I'm not a firefighter and I can't splash water over RF. If something happens at my kid's school, I'm not there, and even if I was, I probably wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
That being said, if someone really, really thinks that I can somehow help them over the phone in an emergency, despite my number not being 9-1-1, certain family and friend's numbers I allow to punch through DND and reach me.
I might like to be informed of emergencies, but I'm not a first responder. If you are bleeding phone 911, not me.
To be fair, my mom sends my wife a message to tell me to "check my phone" if she needs me :)
Each person finds their own level of intrusion they want from their device. I've picked mine. You pick yours.
If I'm being frank, that extra minute for me to respond probably won't change their fate if they are indeed bleeding out somewhere.
But then you find an open source solution which is in general better and can do everything you want (simply tested already with just a docker compose up) but for deployment you get hit hard by compliance who just checks the SOC2 certifications and wants a in-depth due diligence of the code since everyone in the world can theoretically change it. Then your manager asks how it can be so good if it's for free and open source. And of course, last but not least, your overloaded team in general not happy to support just another unpredictable piece of software...
So it's the question to rather burn money and nerves with an awful SaaS offering and their endless and useless sales cycles and terrible and super expensive vendor-lock-ins or burn some money and nerves by utilising and running open source inhouse...
So typically I prefer to chose for the open source option and especially if the SaaS option isn't allowing me easy and fast self-onboarding, meaningful testing periods and a predictable and transparent pricing.
And then, if it get's widely adopted, I allocate some budget to support the authors and/or get some support plan (for more complex open source software) in place even though you most likely never need it...
Like, yes, you'd lose money offering 4-hour-SLA support to customers paying the entry-level price. But you could make that decision, and have part of your business model be subsidizing those customers. It depends on everything else in your model; how you acquire customers, what their lifetime value is, &c.
And in my experience, SSO doesn't need to be expensive. SAML and Kerberos should be expensive, sure. But OIDC with standard seevices such as Google, GitHub, Okta or Keycloak should absolutely be part of the base package.
Personally, I'll just build the open core version from source and add all the "enterprise" features like SSO, S3 and Prometheus metrics myself.
By all means: build your own SSO on the open core of products that charge for SSO. I promise: the companies don't really care that you're doing this. You're profoundly segmenting yourself out by doing that.
Oh there absolutely is. The customers that use OIDC use a relatively light stack and are generally okay with relatively simple setups. They're usually startups and are also the ones that can feasibly add SSO into your app themselves.
The customers that need SAML are older, larger companies often with a custom mix of multiple hybrid AD and AzureAD directories for each department that need special handling with custom properties and realtime sync. You'll be spending at least a few engineer-months on support for them.
I've been on both sides previously, I've seen it all.
If I have 100 cheap customers I need to scale it for 100. If I have 3 I can get by with putting staff "on call". (Pay the existing staff a bonus for out of hours etc.)
You can't pay $20 a month for something, and expect a high SLA . That's not reasonable (and certainly not sustainable. ) a business that offered that would be on my "don't touch, will be out of business soon" category.
It's certainly possible to have a "free tier" - there are hood reasons for that. But the free tier had better not be costing you money. If they do, you don't have a business you have a hobby.
Surely any company doing that would be spending profits on less profitable customers which is not economically sensible. See the box on page 2 of https://regulationbodyofknowledge.org/wp-content/uploads/201...
Cross-subsidisation can occur due to regulations or a company trying to monopolise a market.
Pricing a product depends on how much you can charge and variable costs, not so much on how much it cost to develop - which as you point out leads to price discrimination - where it looks like one group is subsidising the other but maybe not in reality.
I would like to see a model of the marginal costs and ideal decisions.
Deciding to build features for higher paying clients only makes profits if those features are paid for by those clients. Other clients might get those features but it isn't "subsidisation" - however I'm not sure what a better word is! It isn't free-riding or consumer surplus.
Ultimately the job of the airline is to get me from A to B. They do just that for First Class and sub-economy. But for more money you can have snacks etc.
Airlines offer add-ons that cost them real money (checked bags) and things that don't (seat selection.) They allow the customer to decide which features they want and which they don't.
Not all seats generate the same profit, but all seats generate some profit above marginal cost. (Usually some number of seats needs to be filled before the flight makes a profit, but that's a different equation.)
With software there's naturally some segmentation, and so the smart company tries to capture that value. Equally some segments want different (expensive) things like Support (and can afford it) so that needs to be on the table to win that customer in the first place.
A segmented offering is inevitable, at which point you then have to decide who does the segmenting. The client? Or do you have a salesperson to help them?
There's no right answer, but usually it depends on the product price. If I'm buying an airline seat I can figure it out [1]. If I'm buying an airplane probably not.
[1] I'm old enough to have lived in a time when there were specialists necessary to buy an airline seat.
The counter approach is: - Make complete information available as transparently as possible and don't gate it. - Be forthcoming about weaknesses. Don't force prospects and customers to find them. - Ensure that when a prospect or customer does want to talk to someone, they immediately reach someone who can handle the problem or answer the question (no need for escalations.) - Never have an AI agent call someone unless the customer specifically requests that and be sure that all AI agents immediately disclose that they are AI. - Offer flexible e-mail list subscription options (monthly, quarterly, annually, only release notes, etc.) - If the product is not a fit, try to offer something useful anyway such as a suggestion of another product that might be a better match for their needs.
Value based pricing is one of the reasons why a lot of companies end up in these situations. Rather than setting a standard price, the company does a detailed investigation of the customer to try to find out how much value they will gain from using the product and then they set the price based on that determination. Although it maximizes revenue in theory, it is slow and invasive.
- people don’t read your documentation - if they find one edge-case that is not covered by your product they concentrate all their energy on it even though the competitor product doesn’t even work for the happy path (but ofc they won’t learn that until too late) - you will have a person on the free tier who is not able to the simplest programming take up all the time of your technical support if you let them
The rest (disclose usage of AI, offer multiple newsletters (imo unnecessary work), be upfront if it’s not a good fit) is very sensible and works in my experience.
The first three will break your product - but maybe I’m just cynical and was holding it wrong all this time
edit: I’m assuming you want to build some kind of investor fuelled unicorn - your approach probably will work for a single person slow but steady growth while you have other side income
ALSO: your UX needs to warn people about sharp edges and one-way doors, BEFORE your user commits to an action they might regret. These are not incompatible.
>your UX needs to warn people about sharp edges and one-way doors, BEFORE your user commits to an action they might regret. These are not incompatible.
Assuming trump doesn't nix it, the recent FTC ruling should fix this by itself. it should be as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe.
I just assume that if a product is gated behind "let's hope on a call!" it's still vaporware and there's a 50/50 chance that they'll pivot within a few months.
Having run into this many many times it's usually because that little edge case is where the hard problem lives in the problem domain and is the reason, whether the customers know it consciously or not, they bought it. Who pays for something that only handles the easy cases? The author even talks about it with the "one specific thing" line. I guarantee it's that one stubborn edge case.
It's likely you reached for a solution in the first place because you wanted something to turn a problem with a mix of difficulties into an easy one offloaded to a 3rd party.
I created and sold software (and services) for over a decade, and could never have lived with myself if I'd treated customers the way the original article describes.
I'm sure you knew all this better than me, but just want to elaborate for anyone who genuinely don't understands who falls for this.
Are there real humans / customers who ask, "yes, have an AI call me?"
I've sat on a lot of sales calls and I get these feels. But when it comes to selling to people who are NOT the author, managers, execs, decision making architecture astronauts ... that long list of features and functionality really do seem to sell the product. Not that they'll use them...
Someone who wishes procurement reduced to online documentation and credit cards is going to hate their job if it requires engaging with high touch sales processes.
Maybe they need a purchase team partner - the analog of the salesperson in a salesperson-sales engineer team.
A more happy flow exists, author signs up for trial, he can't find or is unsure if feature exists during trial or reading docs, he asks sales/sales engineer where it is, salespeople show him or speak to PM to get him a timeline, later the feature he needs goes into beta and sales reconnects and demos, starts trial using beta. Sales helps draft the internal proposal/implementation plan to convince his boss and the hundreds of others needed for the sale. They buy when it goes GA.
Yet at the same time, when faced with a complaint about excessive unnecessary sales processes, the solution is to add more people.
Ever since I started taking this advice instead of going through a sales process (I really only need this inflicted on me a single time in my life), I have been a lot happier. We also stick the counter at around $50k saved per year for applications that are essentially fancy crud forms.
The best part is it bypasses all the complicance requirements, since if it’s written in your company it can’t possibly be bad.
There are lots of ways to make a lot of money selling a service. The best way IMO is to build a service that is easy to integrate and customize, delights your customers, and has a simple pricing model. There should be no surprises in any of these traits. Customers will be loyal because you’ve made their lives easier - you didn’t just “solve their problem”, you solved their problem in a way that doesn’t require them to change anything else about their business to adapt to you.
The other way involves minimum viable products, basic features only available at top tier pricing, only have a single way to integrate and no meaningful customization. You make your product a black box that your customers can only escape with Herculean effort and lots of begging on many time consuming phone calls.
It seems like startup culture somehow funnels everyone into the second category.
This model works especially well when your early (pre-series-B go-to-market) is not big companies (say, 1000+ employees).
Do the direct approach with no bullsh*t, instant demo, meaningful trial period, easy onboarding, etc and lose those customers that expect the usual sales ride.
Source: I do the direct approach.
In the case described where a technical person is shielding the final decision makers, it's more of a gamble and will often fail.
I know thats their job but goddamn, this kind of competitive spying is scummy af lol
...and I realized it was the recruiter, probably not interested in my friend so much as recruiting off the reference list.
it's everywhere.
It is true that CodeSquish probably works better than the paid product, but it only solves 20% of the problems that the paid product does. You are in the lucky group of 5-10% of all people that the paid product targets whose requirements are fully covered with that 20%.
For the remaining 90%, it's either the paid product, or another free/open source product which may or may not exist.
Obviously there are exceptions to this, but in general, commercial products are bloated for a reason. People really need 20% of the functionality as the saying goes, but everybody needs a different 20%.
I had this happen for a service we already had implemented at my company. I created a new account just to make sure it was working because we had a few say the site or login was being blocked by our security software. Even after I deleted the new account I was getting emails from them.
I have no desire to be in your fucking sales funnel.
1) It may turn out that a lot of this is necessary in order to sell B2B and keep half of the software industry going. The business on the sell side might need to reach out multiple times, engage a sales engineer, help you align all the decision makers etc otherwise it simply wouldn’t get done. Buyers are so busy and selling to a big company is so complex that some of this is just a necessary evil for B2B commerce to continue.
2) Imagine if companies were actually better at buying. They spend $millions on enterprise bloatware when startups can literally produce something 10x better at a 10th of the cost. If they were easier to sell to then we could all have nice things without this madness.
I agree that the OPs experience is soul destroying, but clients could help themselves a little and end up with more money in their pockets and better tech.
SLAs and contractual assurances are very hard to deliver at 1% cost.
Enterprise products is just another class, and it has nothing to do with the product.
Nobody in the chain is interested in outcomes, they’re interested in completed process.
The value of something to the business is totally uninteresting to a purchasing person. They care about contractual arrangements, compliance with all sorts of poorly thought out ethics agreements, and making sure that all the process has been followed.
The result is far more money spent for far less outcome than if we’d just got a credit card and bought something. There’s a whole ecosystem of companies which are terrible at actually solving problems, but know exactly how to meet all the requirements of a large corporate purchasing department.
It’s depressing.
However if you're on a call with two EMs, a couple engineers, a security engineer, and a product manager, you're on the right call.
A single engineer very likely wants a PLG (product led growth) experience, sign up, read some docs, make a few API calls, and then punch in a credit card when they're ready. But you don't sell a $500k deal (usually) without some phone calls and a deck.
• “Obviously, I don’t care about this anymore.”
• “But what if they’ve finally added the feature I wanted?”
This gives me an idea... how about reaching out to developers and ask them what their experience was, which features they'd like the most, and/or subscribe to when they will be launched, to be the first to try them and give feedback? Even this guy would go for that.
I've built this exact open source platform, for "nearly everything you'll ever need" for full-stack web apps (from profiles, to access, control, notifications, payments, credits, even videoconferencing and livestreaming). You can build your own Facebook or Twitter pretty quickly.
Here it is: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform
But I haven't really marketed it, at all. Almost no one on HN has heard of it. Only if someone takes the time to poke around will they be impressed, start to use it, etc.
Even more than that, I started a new GitHub project recently as I plan to release v2.0 after many years. So all the stars on the original project are not even on the new one. (The old one is still on my github.)
And here is the documentation: https://qbix.com/platform/guide
So this is the extreme opposite ... I haven't started trying to market it or sell it to the world or even attract developers to it. But it's there if someone bothers to look.
If anyone is reading from RingCentral: you are seriously pushing your customers away with these shitty calls. Just stop harassing your own customers.
This too is already rapidly becoming utopia-land.
Plus, when salespeople ask how I’m using their product, I need to prepare because, most of the time, I don’t remember how I was using it. That project isn’t the center of my world.
That said, I still accept calls from people I know in the field. I recently had two calls with Glauber Costa, the founder of Turso, and in the process of scheduling another one with the Pydantic Logfire folks. But none of them are sales reps, and they’re usually fun to talk to, so I’m happy to do it.
Companies, don't do this. After I've attempted unsubscription, I flag every single email from you as spam.
Let me get this straight: author clicks around on B2B SaaS with un-focused sales models (both the heavy account rep / sales engineer sales-driven process, and the free trial product-driven process) because they want One Small Feature that's too big to build themselves (but still small enough for someone else to build and open-source, sustainably), knowing that expressing interest to purchase will result in an Enterprise Sales Cycle yet being pissed off that it resulted in an Enterprise Sales Cycle?
Methinks the author doth protest too much to cover up their own misaligned expectations. If you want One Small Feature then it's either covered by the product-led pricing (i.e. credit card based, no Enterprise Sales Cycle) or it's not. And if it's not, if you have to click a "Contact Us" button, which, being an industry veteran, you know will launch an Enterprise Sales Cycle, then maybe what you're asking for isn't really One Small Feature, because you're going to pay Enterprise Pricing for your One Small Feature, and so maybe this isn't the vendor to get it from.
The Enterprise Sales Cycle exists because the number of people who can put Enterprise Pricing (~$25+k/year) on a corporate credit card, without any internal checks, is close to zero. The Enterprise Sales Cycle exists precisely to align the many stakeholders whose alignment is necessary to sign larger deals. If you have a corporate card, are looking for a solution that you can buy independently, then you are not in the vendor's market and you're doing everybody a huge disservice by trying to force a deal anyway. Go find a vendor that actually targets your market segment.
"[...] I'll Google CodeSquish and discover it does everything I need, costs nothing, and is 100x more performant—even though it's maintained by a single recluse who only emerges from their Vermont farm to push code to their self-hosted git repo."
The poor, single recluse discovers one Tuesday afternoon that your company makes 100 million dollars a year with "CodeSquish", while not contributing anything back. He silently questions his life choices—or, shall we say, licensing choices—while feeding chickens on his Vermont farm.
Won’t work for every product, but I’m pushing through with my prototype and that (i.e. release notes) is something to consider.
"I'm a European citizen. Please erase me from your list as per the GDPR"
Very easy to deactivate an address when I decide I don't want to hear from them anymore.