[RavenDB] Pricing
574 views
Skip to first unread message
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 2:23:03 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Before it goes live, thoughts?
|
Feature |
Raven DB Community |
Raven DB Commercial |
Raven DB Enterprise |
Licensing |
|||
|
License |
Open source |
Commercial |
Commercial |
|
Can be used with closed source software |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Functionality |
|||
|
High Performance Document Database |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Full transaction support |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Extensible by users |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Full Text Search |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Map/Reduce |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Native .NET client API |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Web based management console |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
REST API |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Administration |
|||
|
Online backup |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Online Import / Export |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Hands off administration |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
High load & high availability |
|||
|
Intelligent sharding support |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
High availability instance failover |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Replication |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Online failover to warm spare |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Extensions |
|||
|
Document versioning |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Document level security |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Replicate to RDBMS |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Support & Services |
|||
|
Number of incidents per year |
2 |
6 |
|
|
Response time |
3d |
24h |
|
|
Communication channel |
|
|
|
Subscription per month |
Free |
79 USD |
799 USD |
OEM / Perpetual: |
|||
Carl Hörberg
May 17, 2010, 2:59:38 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
only subscription?
is it per instance, machine, application, customer, or something else?
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 3:00:56 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Per instance, and there is perpetual pricing available.
The problem is that it depends on the mode you want to use it for.
If you just want to pay once, or want to deploy it as part of OEM package.
Tobi
May 17, 2010, 3:46:25 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Per instance, and there is perpetual pricing available.
> The problem is that it depends on the mode you want to use it for.
> If you just want to pay once, or want to deploy it as part of OEM package.
For what I have in mind, I would like to use RavenDB as a local in-process
> Per instance, and there is perpetual pricing available.
> The problem is that it depends on the mode you want to use it for.
> If you just want to pay once, or want to deploy it as part of OEM package.
DB for an embedded system. A monthly subscription per instance would
definitely be a no-go.
Tobias
Emil Cardell
May 17, 2010, 3:52:14 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
I'm agreeing.
I think monthly subscription for a product that's going to be central in a solution on is normally a no-go. Impossible so tell to my clients. I think it's better to have a fixed price + monthly support/upgrade.
/Emil
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 3:59:04 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
A perpetual license would have to cost quite a bit more, though.
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 4:24:11 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Let me try this again:
The essential parts are:
Subscription per month |
Free |
79 USD |
|
449 USD |
|||
Perpetual: |
Free | 1 599 USD | 8 599 USD |
OEM: |
Free | Contact us | Contact us |
Now, here is where it gets interesting.
If you don't like it, what I would like you to do is to make me a counter offer
Emil Cardell
May 17, 2010, 4:24:36 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
These are my scenarios I'm living with right now where I like to use raven.
1. Open source - No problem here
2. On the side startup - We can't afford anything over 200€ but on the other hand we can live without support and any extra fluff until we make money off it.
3. I work as an consultant normally for customers running a cms product. Part of that product can be enhanced by ravendb, I'm meeting them discussing how they can open up interfaces for implementing your own storage. The thing is that it just a part of the system, and making them pay a monthly fee is a big apparatus with a lot of paper work. A one time fee would be great with option to buy early support subscription. The price that I can rationally sell to my clients today is about 2-5 days worth of work depending on client. 1600€ for a small client to 4000€ for a real big client.
Thats me.
/Emil
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 4:29:49 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
How about something like startup offer for first instance for free?
Take a look at the next email with the perpetual pricing structure.
Emil Cardell
May 17, 2010, 4:36:04 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
The commercial perpetual license is in a good price range. Can probably sell to smaller clients.
The enterprise is ok as well.
Good start-up license.
Starting to looking like a good price list.
/Emil
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 4:39:02 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Great, I would like to get another pair of eyes or two on that before going live.
Aaron Weiker
May 17, 2010, 4:54:01 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
Throwing this out there as I know some people really like to have a phone number to call when the crap hits the fan. I'm not in a situation where I would want this now, but I have some people not even consider unless this is an option. Additionally this is where you can provide your professional services for a really nice price point.
Telephone Support /hr | n/a | 329USD | 279 USD |
Adam
May 17, 2010, 4:53:50 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
Seems a little steep to me, don't get me wrong I'm loving the product but as a consultant selling it into organisations without replication for $1599 seems like a hard sell. If you had replication in the commercial version I think it'd be a lot easier to make the case ... add a Yes in the commercial column for replication and I think you'd be golden.
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 4:55:26 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Will do
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 4:56:06 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Adam,
Without replication, exactly what motivation _do_ you have to go to the enterprise version?
And the commercial version can do sharding
Adam
May 17, 2010, 5:07:44 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
Based on the feature table the enterprise features that would motivate me would be high availability instance failover, online failover to warm spare (I think maybe these are both provided by replication, whether you could or would want to restrict them I don't know), replicate to rdbms and support levels.
The document level security looks very interesting too.
I must caveat that I'm very new to ravendb right now and basing my judgements on the feature table, I'm just aware that a lack of replication would terrify many of my clients.
Does that make sense?
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 5:16:04 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
High availability instance fail over and warm spare are implemented on top of replication. They are natural consequences of having replication, as a matter of fact.
I am not sure if rdbms replication and document level security would be that attractive without replication.
Jason Slocomb
May 17, 2010, 5:17:58 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
I think counter offer is somewhat common. My boss is always negotiating with our 3rd party vendors!
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 5:22:15 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Except that unless he gets to do it really quickly, he may not get a chance to affect things.
Jason Slocomb
May 17, 2010, 5:23:32 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
Oh I see, perpetual as in forever, I read that as annually for some reason.
Carl Hörberg
May 17, 2010, 5:46:57 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
as i see it, document level security is very attractive without replication, eg. ajax access in a multi tender application. or am i misunderstanding the concept?
Joel Lucsy
May 17, 2010, 5:43:45 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
I'd recommed sharding at the enterprise level and replication at the
commercial level. Seems more inline with what the these particular
types would want.
On Monday, May 17, 2010, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Adam,Without replication, exactly what motivation _do_ you have to go to the enterprise version?And the commercial version can do sharding
>
> Contact us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
>
> Now, here is where it gets interesting.If you don't like it, what I would like you to do is to make me a counter offer
>
>
>
>
commercial level. Seems more inline with what the these particular
types would want.
On Monday, May 17, 2010, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Adam,Without replication, exactly what motivation _do_ you have to go to the enterprise version?And the commercial version can do sharding
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Adam <myog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems a little steep to me, don't get me wrong I'm loving the product but as a consultant selling it into organisations without replication for $1599 seems like a hard sell. If you had replication in the commercial version I think it'd be a lot easier to make the case ... add a Yes in the commercial column for replication and I think you'd be golden.
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2010, at 21:24, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Let me try this again:The essential parts are:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subscription per month
>
>
> Free
>
>
> 79 USD
>
>
> 449 USD
>
>
>
>
> Perpetual:
>
>
> Free
> 1 599 USD
>
> 8 599 USD
>
>
>
>
> OEM:
>
>
> Free
> Contact us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
> Seems a little steep to me, don't get me wrong I'm loving the product but as a consultant selling it into organisations without replication for $1599 seems like a hard sell. If you had replication in the commercial version I think it'd be a lot easier to make the case ... add a Yes in the commercial column for replication and I think you'd be golden.
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2010, at 21:24, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Let me try this again:The essential parts are:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subscription per month
>
>
> Free
>
>
> 79 USD
>
>
> 449 USD
>
>
>
>
> Perpetual:
>
>
> Free
> 1 599 USD
>
> 8 599 USD
>
>
>
>
> OEM:
>
>
> Free
>
> Contact us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
>
> Now, here is where it gets interesting.If you don't like it, what I would like you to do is to make me a counter offer
>
>
>
>
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 6:13:24 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Oh, I agree that this is a pretty compelling feature, I am just not sure that it is compelling enough. :-)
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 6:15:17 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Hm... what about limiting replication in the commercial version?
Something like, can replicate only to one machine, and can't have master/master relationaships?
Aaron Weiker
May 17, 2010, 6:17:23 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
That would handle a read-only scenario perfectly and also give them a taste for the power that is in the enterprise edition.
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 6:24:46 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
We seem to have reached an agreement, any more comments?
|
High availability instance failover |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Master / Slave Replication |
Yes, unlimited replicas | Single replica only |
Yes, unlimited replicas |
|
Master / Slave Replication |
Ys | Yes |
| Telephone support | 379 USD / hour | 279 USD / hour |
Subscription per month |
Free |
79 USD |
449 USD |
Perpetual: |
Free | 1 599 USD | 8 599 USD |
OEM: |
Free | Contact us | Contact us |
Nick Aceves
May 17, 2010, 6:44:43 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
I am curious about how you're going to handle OEM pricing. I have a project in the works that will require that. By what's been said so-far it seems that you'll handle OEM stuff on a case-by-case basis, but it'd be nice know something general about that area.
Nick
Rob Ashton
May 17, 2010, 6:45:55 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
~Sorry I've been out all night and not had a chance to look at this.
I think the pricing you've ended up at is reasonable, I saw start-up
mentioned, first instance being free - did I understand that
correctly?
Cos that would be a necessity, if I was to build a new product now and
set up a plebby from-home start-up, I'd probably not want to be paying
license fees immediately, but like MS Bizspark buying in early to the
software on the basis that once/if the startup becomes viable more
licenses will be needed and thus money for you.
On May 17, 11:24 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> We seem to have reached an agreement, any more comments?
>
> Feature Raven DB
> Community Raven DB
> Commercial Raven DB
> Enterprise Licensing
>
> *License*
>
> No
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> Functionality
>
> *High Performance Document Database*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Full transaction support*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Extensible by users*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Full Text Search*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Map/Reduce*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Native .NET client API*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Web based management console*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *REST API*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> Administration
>
> *Online backup*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Online Import / Export*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Hands off administration*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *High availability instance failover*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Master / Slave Replication*
> Ys Yes
>
> *Online failover to warm spare*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> Extensions
>
> *Document versioning*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Document level security*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Replicate to RDBMS*
>
> 2
>
> 6
>
> *Response time*
>
> 3d
>
> 24h
>
> *Communication channel*
>
> Email
>
> Email
> *Telephone support* 379 USD / hour 279 USD / hour Subscription per
> us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
I think the pricing you've ended up at is reasonable, I saw start-up
mentioned, first instance being free - did I understand that
correctly?
Cos that would be a necessity, if I was to build a new product now and
set up a plebby from-home start-up, I'd probably not want to be paying
license fees immediately, but like MS Bizspark buying in early to the
software on the basis that once/if the startup becomes viable more
licenses will be needed and thus money for you.
On May 17, 11:24 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> We seem to have reached an agreement, any more comments?
>
> Feature Raven DB
> Community Raven DB
> Commercial Raven DB
> Enterprise Licensing
>
>
> Open source
> (AGPLv3)
>
> Commercial
>
> Commercial
>
> *Can be used with closed source software*
> Open source
> (AGPLv3)
>
> Commercial
>
> Commercial
>
>
> No
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> Functionality
>
> *High Performance Document Database*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Full transaction support*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Extensible by users*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Full Text Search*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Map/Reduce*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Native .NET client API*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Web based management console*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *REST API*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> Administration
>
> *Online backup*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Online Import / Export*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Hands off administration*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> High load & high availability
>
> *Intelligent sharding support*
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> High load & high availability
>
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *High availability instance failover*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Master / Slave Replication*
> Yes, unlimited replicas Single replica only
>
> Yes, unlimited replicas
>
> *Master / Slave Replication*
>
> Yes, unlimited replicas
>
> Ys Yes
>
> *Online failover to warm spare*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> Extensions
>
> *Document versioning*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Document level security*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
>
> *Replicate to RDBMS*
>
> Yes
>
> Yes
> Support & Services
>
> *Number of incidents per year*
> Yes
>
> Yes
> Support & Services
>
>
> 2
>
> 6
>
> *Response time*
>
> 3d
>
> 24h
>
> *Communication channel*
>
>
> *Telephone support* 379 USD / hour 279 USD / hour Subscription per
> month
>
> Free
>
> 79 USD
>
> 449 USD
> Perpetual: Free 1 599 USD 8 599 USD OEM: Free Contact
> us<http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact> Contact
>
> Free
>
> 79 USD
>
> 449 USD
> Perpetual: Free 1 599 USD 8 599 USD OEM: Free Contact
> us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 6:48:37 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Still working on the strategy, but it is probably going to be some form of per developer licensing.
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 6:49:42 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot to put that one in.
Brandon
May 17, 2010, 6:49:25 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Seconded.
And also, exactly what does OEM mean? Would that be good for my case,
where I would be deploying thousands of embedded db's? And I wouldn't
know how many thousand, just "many" thousand.
Brandon
On May 17, 5:44 pm, Nick Aceves <nickace...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am curious about how you're going to handle OEM pricing. I have a project
> in the works that will require that. By what's been said so-far it seems
> that you'll handle OEM stuff on a case-by-case basis, but it'd be nice know
> something general about that area.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > We seem to have reached an agreement, any more comments?
>
> > Feature Raven DB
> > Community Raven DB
> > Commercial Raven DB
> > Enterprise Licensing
>
> > *License*
> > us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
And also, exactly what does OEM mean? Would that be good for my case,
where I would be deploying thousands of embedded db's? And I wouldn't
know how many thousand, just "many" thousand.
Brandon
On May 17, 5:44 pm, Nick Aceves <nickace...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am curious about how you're going to handle OEM pricing. I have a project
> in the works that will require that. By what's been said so-far it seems
> that you'll handle OEM stuff on a case-by-case basis, but it'd be nice know
> something general about that area.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > We seem to have reached an agreement, any more comments?
>
> > Feature Raven DB
> > Community Raven DB
> > Commercial Raven DB
> > Enterprise Licensing
>
>
> > Open source
> > (AGPLv3)
>
> > Commercial
>
> > Commercial
>
> > Open source
> > (AGPLv3)
>
> > Commercial
>
> > Commercial
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
> > High load & high availability
>
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
> > High load & high availability
>
> > *Intelligent sharding support*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > *High availability instance failover*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > *Master / Slave Replication*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > *High availability instance failover*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > *Master / Slave Replication*
> > Yes, unlimited replicas Single replica only
>
> > Yes, unlimited replicas
>
>
> > Yes, unlimited replicas
>
> > *Master / Slave Replication*
> > Ys Yes
>
> > *Online failover to warm spare*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
> > Extensions
>
> > *Document versioning*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > *Document level security*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > *Replicate to RDBMS*
>
> > Ys Yes
>
> > *Online failover to warm spare*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
> > Extensions
>
> > *Document versioning*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > *Document level security*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
>
> > *Replicate to RDBMS*
>
> > Yes
>
> > Yes
> > Support & Services
>
>
> > Yes
> > Support & Services
>
> > *Number of incidents per year*
>
> > 2
>
> > 6
>
> > *Response time*
>
> > 3d
>
> > 24h
>
> > *Communication channel*
>
> > Email
>
> > Email
> > *Telephone support* 379 USD / hour 279 USD / hour Subscription per
>
> > 2
>
> > 6
>
> > *Response time*
>
> > 3d
>
> > 24h
>
> > *Communication channel*
>
>
> > month
>
> > Free
>
> > 79 USD
>
> > 449 USD
> > Perpetual: Free 1 599 USD 8 599 USD OEM: Free Contact us<http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact> Contact
>
> > Free
>
> > 79 USD
>
> > 449 USD
> > us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
Michael Davis
May 17, 2010, 6:45:15 PM5/17/10
to rav...@googlegroups.com
Could you provide any details on what you might be thinking about for an OEM license? In particular, is this what you'd need if you wanted to use it as an embedded database in a desktop application?
Like someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm interested in using Raven DB in that way, but per-machine licensing wouldn't allow that, and a subscription model also probably wouldn't be appropriate.
Like someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm interested in using Raven DB in that way, but per-machine licensing wouldn't allow that, and a subscription model also probably wouldn't be appropriate.
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 6:59:07 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Brandon & Nick,
I would love to hear more about your scenarios.
Broadly, I am thinking about allowing OEM using per developer subscription.
Brandon
May 17, 2010, 7:11:03 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Makes sense. My scenario is an embedded database as the persistence
layer for a mobile data entry application (by mobile I mean laptop/
notebook). It would be in use by thousands of users, and multiple
applications (including third-party apps) would use the same database,
through a single interface. The major requirements:
- We cannot do per-deployment licensing. Many different organizations
would manage deployments, and we do not receive money from those
organizations. (By the way, we are non-profit... but I'm not sure
that going AGPL would be possible).
- We cannot do license keys. Individual license keys per deployment
would be too much of a hassle, for the reason stated above.
Brandon
layer for a mobile data entry application (by mobile I mean laptop/
notebook). It would be in use by thousands of users, and multiple
applications (including third-party apps) would use the same database,
through a single interface. The major requirements:
- We cannot do per-deployment licensing. Many different organizations
would manage deployments, and we do not receive money from those
organizations. (By the way, we are non-profit... but I'm not sure
that going AGPL would be possible).
- We cannot do license keys. Individual license keys per deployment
would be too much of a hassle, for the reason stated above.
Brandon
Ayende Rahien
May 17, 2010, 7:21:00 PM5/17/10
to ravendb
Yeah, sounds like developer pricing is the right fit here
theouteredge
May 18, 2010, 5:16:00 AM5/18/10
to ravendb
I really can't read that... is it supposed to be formatted as a table?
On May 17, 7:23 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Before it goes live, thoughts?
>
> *Feature***
>
> *Raven DB Community*
>
> *Raven DB Commercial*
>
> *Raven DB Enterprise*
> *Replication*
>
> Yes
> OEM / Perpetual:
>
> Contact us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
On May 17, 7:23 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Before it goes live, thoughts?
>
> *Feature***
>
> *Raven DB Community*
>
> *Raven DB Commercial*
>
> *Raven DB Enterprise*
>
> Yes
> Subscription per month
>
> Free
>
> 79 USD
>
> 799 USD
>
> Free
>
> 79 USD
>
> OEM / Perpetual:
>
> Contact us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
Brandon
May 18, 2010, 8:51:49 AM5/18/10
to ravendb
I couldn't read it through Google groups either, but through email it
looks correct.
looks correct.
Karloff
May 18, 2010, 2:24:40 PM5/18/10
to ravendb
Am I missing something or is RavenDB set to bankrupt SMB's looking to
use it in a highly distributed environment?
Suppose a company decides to buy perpetual licenses for RavenDB
Enterprise @ USD 8,599 per instance. Now let's suppose the same
company requires a relatively "small" RavenDB cluster of say 16 nodes.
Am I right to think that the company will require 16 licenses @ USD
8,599 each - a WHOPPING USD 137,584?
Unless I really did misunderstand the licensing model of a DB that
makes a good fit for highly distributed computing, then that grand sum
is way over board and no matter how fantastic Oren may be, I'd only
consider paying that much to a corporation with a hole army of support
engineers from Kathmandu to New York!
Looking at the license model a little further, I notice there's an OEM
option which may be applicable for above scenario.
None the less, RavenDB be a pure .NET solution or not, for now such a
licensing model without the pedigree and real-world-proven track
records of some more established NoSQL DB's is more than a show-
stopper for any suspecting PM doing some budgeting.
Either way, Oren, it's great stuff you've produced here and I don't
mean any disrespect to your work or decisions you've made regarding
YOUR product... was merely my feelings after waiting a week to see
that license model.
Best regards,
Karl
use it in a highly distributed environment?
Suppose a company decides to buy perpetual licenses for RavenDB
Enterprise @ USD 8,599 per instance. Now let's suppose the same
company requires a relatively "small" RavenDB cluster of say 16 nodes.
Am I right to think that the company will require 16 licenses @ USD
8,599 each - a WHOPPING USD 137,584?
Unless I really did misunderstand the licensing model of a DB that
makes a good fit for highly distributed computing, then that grand sum
is way over board and no matter how fantastic Oren may be, I'd only
consider paying that much to a corporation with a hole army of support
engineers from Kathmandu to New York!
Looking at the license model a little further, I notice there's an OEM
option which may be applicable for above scenario.
None the less, RavenDB be a pure .NET solution or not, for now such a
licensing model without the pedigree and real-world-proven track
records of some more established NoSQL DB's is more than a show-
stopper for any suspecting PM doing some budgeting.
Either way, Oren, it's great stuff you've produced here and I don't
mean any disrespect to your work or decisions you've made regarding
YOUR product... was merely my feelings after waiting a week to see
that license model.
Best regards,
Karl
Ayende Rahien
May 18, 2010, 8:49:17 PM5/18/10
to ravendb
Karl,
OEM option is available for embedded only, so it is not a good fit.
We intentionally offer multiple options for licensing.
You can choose to go with the one time payment, or you can choose to go with a monthly subscription.
I am not sure what your expectations were, but I did some extensive research before deciding on those price ranges.
For comparisons, look at: BerkleyDB, Neo4J, Versant, DB4O
I'll add that if you are looking for a bulk purchase of 16 instances, you can call us and get a discount.
And while I would dearly love it if any SMB would be required by law to buy RavenDB, I do believe that this is not yet the case, so I don't believe that RavenDB is set out to bankrupt anyone.
The set of features and integration that RavenDB offer is, in my opinion, well worth the price point that was set to it.
Eric J. Smith
May 19, 2010, 12:48:04 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
I gotta agree with this assessment. Since one of the primary
features / attractions of NoSQL dbs is to be able to easily scale out
on commodity hardware, I think the expectation is that most apps would
use at least several instances of the server. I think the opposite
would be true for databases that you list Ayende. Those would
typically be scale up instances and far less of them.
I was REALLY excited about RavenDB until I saw the pricing and,
unfortunately, you have priced it WAY out of my league. When there
are free options that are much more proven and mature available like
Mongo, etc... I'm afraid this is going to be a really tough sell for
you.
I could see myself paying $8,599 for maybe 5 instances of Raven, but
there is no way I'm going to pay $43k instead of using Mongo for
free. I LOVE the product, but I don't love it that much. Sorry.
Mongo is easily your closest competitor and the key differentiator
seems to be that it's .NET based. There is no way I can justify that
kind of expense just because it's .NET based. I mean I know there are
other differences, but Mongo is a pretty full featured and mature
product itself.
Eric J. Smith
features / attractions of NoSQL dbs is to be able to easily scale out
on commodity hardware, I think the expectation is that most apps would
use at least several instances of the server. I think the opposite
would be true for databases that you list Ayende. Those would
typically be scale up instances and far less of them.
I was REALLY excited about RavenDB until I saw the pricing and,
unfortunately, you have priced it WAY out of my league. When there
are free options that are much more proven and mature available like
Mongo, etc... I'm afraid this is going to be a really tough sell for
you.
I could see myself paying $8,599 for maybe 5 instances of Raven, but
there is no way I'm going to pay $43k instead of using Mongo for
free. I LOVE the product, but I don't love it that much. Sorry.
Mongo is easily your closest competitor and the key differentiator
seems to be that it's .NET based. There is no way I can justify that
kind of expense just because it's .NET based. I mean I know there are
other differences, but Mongo is a pretty full featured and mature
product itself.
Eric J. Smith
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 2:21:11 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Eric,
Thanks for your input, it is well considered and convincing.
In particular, I haven't consider the common production scenario for Raven.
See my previous comment on this thread, make me a counter offer for the pricing model.
Robert Muehsig
May 19, 2010, 3:08:26 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
RavenDB looks very intersting, but the pricing is a no-go for me. Is
RavenDB only for "big" websites? For a small startup or a developer
who just build a "small" application like the MVC Music Store (without
releasing it as open source) is 79$ per month much too high. Do you
consider a "Use it for free, but don´t ask us if you have any
questions?"-licence? MongoDB, CoucheDB etc. is not directly made
for .NET devs, but I can use a wrapper - without paying so much money.
RavenDB only for "big" websites? For a small startup or a developer
who just build a "small" application like the MVC Music Store (without
releasing it as open source) is 79$ per month much too high. Do you
consider a "Use it for free, but don´t ask us if you have any
questions?"-licence? MongoDB, CoucheDB etc. is not directly made
for .NET devs, but I can use a wrapper - without paying so much money.
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 3:15:49 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Robert,
You'll note that we offer a specific offer for startups.
You can get a single commercial license of RavenDB for free for startups.
Colin Scott
May 19, 2010, 3:52:15 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
I was starting a spike to drop RavenDB into my current project but
this pricing doesn't make it feasible for this project. It's already
kicked off and I'm unlikely to make the case for it as it was not
mentioned in our original proposal (which was written before I really
became aware of RavenDB). So at this stage it's unfortunately likely
to be something for the next project.
One factor (although not decisive) is that the project includes a DR
site which has what is essentially an eventually consistent copy of
the system. This would seem to require full licences even though the
databases will not be used for querying except under exceptional
circumstances. A licencing model which involves reduced costs for DR
instances or allows a DR instance for each production instance
(provided it is used only for genuine DR purposes) would be helpful.
Probably not helpful enough for me right now, unfortunately.
Colin Scott
this pricing doesn't make it feasible for this project. It's already
kicked off and I'm unlikely to make the case for it as it was not
mentioned in our original proposal (which was written before I really
became aware of RavenDB). So at this stage it's unfortunately likely
to be something for the next project.
One factor (although not decisive) is that the project includes a DR
site which has what is essentially an eventually consistent copy of
the system. This would seem to require full licences even though the
databases will not be used for querying except under exceptional
circumstances. A licencing model which involves reduced costs for DR
instances or allows a DR instance for each production instance
(provided it is used only for genuine DR purposes) would be helpful.
Probably not helpful enough for me right now, unfortunately.
Colin Scott
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 4:31:16 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Colin,
There seems to be two different issues here.
a) whatever you can buy any software after the original proposal
b) RavenDB commercial allows you to run one replica slave (DR copy), you can use that for DR.
David Wynne
May 19, 2010, 5:27:20 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
The first thing I’ll say is that RavenDB looks great - you guys wrote
it, you can charge what you like for it. If it’s as good as it looks,
then it’s probably cheap for large scale corporate scenarios. The
second thing I’ll say is that I’ve not looked at RavenDB in huge
amounts of detail – so it’s possible that I don’t need the features I
think I need (if that makes sense).
From where we stand right now, we’re a start-up (very early days).
We’re working on a SaaS product, that needs to handle lots of data,
and lots of writes, and “always be up” with plenty of redundancy; so a
doc database fits the bill. We’re a .Net shop, but are thinking of
going MongoDB because it’s free, proven and with projects like NoRM,
can work with .Net nicely.
So whilst the free start-up licence is great, we want to be able to
design with failover/sharding/replication in mind from the off and
hopefully need it before too long. That means we will need an
enterprise licence per instance, that means 8 599 USD per instance –
that’s just out of our league at the moment.
Like I say – I’m not saying you owe anyone, anything when it comes to
the pricing. I’m just explaining why the pricing makes RavenDB
prohibitive for companies like ours at the moment. And when I say “at
the moment” – it’s unlikely we’d switch from MongoDB down the road if
that’s working for us to RavenDB unless there was a really compelling
reason to do so. And whilst “it’s written in .Net” is awesome – I’m
not sure the language a service layer is written in, is that
compelling reason.
dw.
it, you can charge what you like for it. If it’s as good as it looks,
then it’s probably cheap for large scale corporate scenarios. The
second thing I’ll say is that I’ve not looked at RavenDB in huge
amounts of detail – so it’s possible that I don’t need the features I
think I need (if that makes sense).
From where we stand right now, we’re a start-up (very early days).
We’re working on a SaaS product, that needs to handle lots of data,
and lots of writes, and “always be up” with plenty of redundancy; so a
doc database fits the bill. We’re a .Net shop, but are thinking of
going MongoDB because it’s free, proven and with projects like NoRM,
can work with .Net nicely.
So whilst the free start-up licence is great, we want to be able to
design with failover/sharding/replication in mind from the off and
hopefully need it before too long. That means we will need an
enterprise licence per instance, that means 8 599 USD per instance –
that’s just out of our league at the moment.
Like I say – I’m not saying you owe anyone, anything when it comes to
the pricing. I’m just explaining why the pricing makes RavenDB
prohibitive for companies like ours at the moment. And when I say “at
the moment” – it’s unlikely we’d switch from MongoDB down the road if
that’s working for us to RavenDB unless there was a really compelling
reason to do so. And whilst “it’s written in .Net” is awesome – I’m
not sure the language a service layer is written in, is that
compelling reason.
dw.
Barry King
May 19, 2010, 6:31:16 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Suggestion for new pricing model.
Open Source, Charity or Non-Commercial (including startups with no
funding or income below commercial threashold)
FREE
Commercial
$50 per month for 3 instances. Each instance thereafter, additional
$20.
Commercial with Support
$125 per month for 3 instances. Each instance thereafter, additional
$80.
Open Source, Charity or Non-Commercial (including startups with no
funding or income below commercial threashold)
FREE
Commercial
$50 per month for 3 instances. Each instance thereafter, additional
$20.
Commercial with Support
$125 per month for 3 instances. Each instance thereafter, additional
$80.
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 6:49:41 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Thanks for the background information.
Two points here:a) what is the counter offer?
b) Raven has a lot more to offer than just written in the .NET, see my post about that.
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 6:52:00 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Finally! I was getting worried here.
One of the reason that I even have the perpetual license option is that I got a lot of push back from the subscription option.
How do you respond to that?
Paul Stovell
May 19, 2010, 7:19:17 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Hi Ayende,
Raven DB is a really nice product, and the admin UI really makes it
fun to use.
Are licenses just for "production" instances, or any running Raven
server? E.g., if I have a team of 5 developers, each running a local
Raven server process on their dev workstation, do I need 5 licenses?
What about on my nightly integration test server?
Paul
Raven DB is a really nice product, and the admin UI really makes it
fun to use.
Are licenses just for "production" instances, or any running Raven
server? E.g., if I have a team of 5 developers, each running a local
Raven server process on their dev workstation, do I need 5 licenses?
What about on my nightly integration test server?
Paul
Barry King
May 19, 2010, 8:11:09 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
The problem with perpetual license is that its a one-off payment to
you, which is no good for you and no good for long term development
of
Raven. How long do we think World of Warcraft would have survived on
that model...
However, a fixed cost to cover you for a year's of updates/fixes and
after that its up to you to renew might be better. Essentially
covering you for a "version" of Raven but not that strict.
So you have your subscription model and you have the one-off payment
option for a licensed copy of raven which covers you for updates for
a
year. After the year, you have a renewal fee (reduced). Now, you do
run the risk of old Raven instances out there but thats not your
problem - thats the risk we take as developers, consumers.
The base, commercial subscription model needs to have more than 1
instance included - 3 sounds good to me.
As per my earlier post and theouteredge's , as you scale out the cost
per instance should be minimal to encourage use and reduce the
barrier
of introducing Raven compared to other non-relational database
solutions.
you, which is no good for you and no good for long term development
of
Raven. How long do we think World of Warcraft would have survived on
that model...
However, a fixed cost to cover you for a year's of updates/fixes and
after that its up to you to renew might be better. Essentially
covering you for a "version" of Raven but not that strict.
So you have your subscription model and you have the one-off payment
option for a licensed copy of raven which covers you for updates for
a
year. After the year, you have a renewal fee (reduced). Now, you do
run the risk of old Raven instances out there but thats not your
problem - thats the risk we take as developers, consumers.
The base, commercial subscription model needs to have more than 1
instance included - 3 sounds good to me.
As per my earlier post and theouteredge's , as you scale out the cost
per instance should be minimal to encourage use and reduce the
barrier
of introducing Raven compared to other non-relational database
solutions.
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 8:13:20 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Licensing is per instance, but you do bring up a problem with the dev model.
Need to think about that for about.
Probably a per develop pricing, build box would count as a dev.
Barry King
May 19, 2010, 8:16:37 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
I vote for FREE to Develop with, its just another blocker to stop
developers adapting it.
developers adapting it.
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 8:24:08 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
I think that it should be reversed, then.
When buying commercial licenses, you get the developer licenses to develop on it.
In other words, if you want to develop commercially, you have to buy a license, but once you bought it, there is no per-dev cost.
Barry King
May 19, 2010, 8:31:30 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Lets say you are developing and want to use RavenDB, its not
commercial (yet). Would you be able to use RavenDB until it was
commercial...
Perhaps a definition of commercial is needed. I think these types of
projects are non-commercial.
A project for a charity organisation/non-profit
Open source project
You could also argue that a project which has no/low level of income
isn't commercial, or maybe you'd just say that it wasn't commercially
viable :).
commercial (yet). Would you be able to use RavenDB until it was
commercial...
Perhaps a definition of commercial is needed. I think these types of
projects are non-commercial.
A project for a charity organisation/non-profit
Open source project
You could also argue that a project which has no/low level of income
isn't commercial, or maybe you'd just say that it wasn't commercially
viable :).
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 8:36:43 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
OSS project - absolutely.
How does this sounds?
Non profit / charity - should send me an email :-)
More generally, during development, you can make use of the OSS version of Raven.
When you want to make a release, you can buy the license, which result in you running a non AGPL version.
How does this sounds?
Barry King
May 19, 2010, 8:38:09 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Sounds reasonable.
Matt
May 19, 2010, 8:40:05 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Let's forget the monthly subscription thing at the moment, traditional
that hasnt been an option on DB products (closest is Software
Assurance addon), most CTOs and even startup should look at the
product over say 5-8 years, this is how you would treat a MS-SQL
Server license or what not.
Then you have 1,599 USD per instance and 8 599 USD per instance. Only
the later of which that have more than one replica. Add a few servers,
lets say a dozen ec2 boxes, hmm.. then you're over 100,000k on a
product yet to prove itself. It this point its understandable the
Frans B called this insane
On May 18, 5:17 am, Aaron Weiker <aa...@weiker.org> wrote:
> That would handle a read-only scenario perfectly and also give them a taste
> for the power that is in the enterprise edition.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > Hm... what about limiting replication in the commercial version?
> > Something like, can replicate only to one machine, and can't have
> > master/master relationaships?
>
> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Joel Lucsy <jjlu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'd recommed sharding at the enterprise level and replication at the
> >> commercial level. Seems more inline with what the these particular
> >> types would want.
>
> >> On Monday, May 17, 2010, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> >> > Adam,Without replication, exactly what motivation _do_ you have to go to
> >> the enterprise version?And the commercial version can do sharding
> >> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Adam <myoge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Seems a little steep to me, don't get me wrong I'm loving the product
> >> but as a consultant selling it into organisations without replication for
> >> $1599 seems like a hard sell. If you had replication in the commercial
> >> version I think it'd be a lot easier to make the case ... add a Yes in the
> >> commercial column for replication and I think you'd be golden.
>
> >> > On 17 May 2010, at 21:24, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> > Let me try this again:The essential parts are:
> >> would like you to do is to make me a counter offer
that hasnt been an option on DB products (closest is Software
Assurance addon), most CTOs and even startup should look at the
product over say 5-8 years, this is how you would treat a MS-SQL
Server license or what not.
Then you have 1,599 USD per instance and 8 599 USD per instance. Only
the later of which that have more than one replica. Add a few servers,
lets say a dozen ec2 boxes, hmm.. then you're over 100,000k on a
product yet to prove itself. It this point its understandable the
Frans B called this insane
On May 18, 5:17 am, Aaron Weiker <aa...@weiker.org> wrote:
> That would handle a read-only scenario perfectly and also give them a taste
> for the power that is in the enterprise edition.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > Hm... what about limiting replication in the commercial version?
> > Something like, can replicate only to one machine, and can't have
> > master/master relationaships?
>
> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Joel Lucsy <jjlu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'd recommed sharding at the enterprise level and replication at the
> >> commercial level. Seems more inline with what the these particular
> >> types would want.
>
> >> On Monday, May 17, 2010, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> >> > Adam,Without replication, exactly what motivation _do_ you have to go to
> >> the enterprise version?And the commercial version can do sharding
> >> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Adam <myoge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Seems a little steep to me, don't get me wrong I'm loving the product
> >> but as a consultant selling it into organisations without replication for
> >> $1599 seems like a hard sell. If you had replication in the commercial
> >> version I think it'd be a lot easier to make the case ... add a Yes in the
> >> commercial column for replication and I think you'd be golden.
>
> >> > On 17 May 2010, at 21:24, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> > Let me try this again:The essential parts are:
>
> >> > Subscription per month
>
> >> > Free
>
> >> > 79 USD
>
> >> > Subscription per month
>
> >> > Free
>
> >> > 79 USD
>
> >> > 449 USD
>
> >> > Perpetual:
>
> >> > Free
> >> > 1 599 USD
>
> >> > 8 599 USD
>
> >> > OEM:
>
> >> > Free
> >> > Contact us <
> >>http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
>
> >> > Contact us <
> >>http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
>
> >> > Now, here is where it gets interesting.If you don't like it, what I
>
> >> > Perpetual:
>
> >> > Free
> >> > 1 599 USD
>
> >> > 8 599 USD
>
> >> > OEM:
>
> >> > Free
> >> > Contact us <
> >>http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
>
> >> > Contact us <
> >>http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>
>
> >> would like you to do is to make me a counter offer
Matt
May 19, 2010, 9:01:33 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Does Perputual mean RavenDB 1.x?
What happens at RavenDB 2.0 or RavenDB-SecondMillenium?
What happens at RavenDB 2.0 or RavenDB-SecondMillenium?
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 9:07:32 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Yes, it means this specific version.
When RavenDB 2012 comes out, you have to pay again, albeit an upgrade fee, and not the full pricing.
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 9:09:20 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Frans calls me insane about once a week.
Did you see my other post, about the same price model, but for 5 instances bulk?
Chris C
May 19, 2010, 8:43:21 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
I think you should be able to run as many instances as you like for
development, testing and demonstration, and it should either be
charged a per developer fee, or free on the assumption that to go live
an actual license will need to be purchased anyway.
The development and testing versions would need to allow running at
either commercial levels though even if it is a separate developer
license, otherwise its annoying to later find the feature you've been
using and tested as fine isn't supported by the edition you're using
in production.
For clarity the licensing page should state that is is licensed per
running instance.
You might consider for the commercial option to allow running 1
standby replica under a single license for manual fail-over only (this
is similar to the offering Microsoft have for MSSQL Server 2005
Standard).
development, testing and demonstration, and it should either be
charged a per developer fee, or free on the assumption that to go live
an actual license will need to be purchased anyway.
The development and testing versions would need to allow running at
either commercial levels though even if it is a separate developer
license, otherwise its annoying to later find the feature you've been
using and tested as fine isn't supported by the edition you're using
in production.
For clarity the licensing page should state that is is licensed per
running instance.
You might consider for the commercial option to allow running 1
standby replica under a single license for manual fail-over only (this
is similar to the offering Microsoft have for MSSQL Server 2005
Standard).
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 9:19:54 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
We already allow a single replica.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
I think that the way the dust is settling, development license will come with the instances licenses.Good point on allow to limit the development version to avoid that.
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 9:19:45 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
I think that the way the dust is settling, development license will come with the instances licenses.
Good point on allow to limit the development version to avoid that.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Chris C <chil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
TexasMensch
May 19, 2010, 11:00:40 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Just chiming in with my 2 cents, for whatever that is worth: I think
your price is too high. Raven is still unproven and I would have
concerns about ravens sustainability. I really dont have a motive here
because I am not in the market for doc db, in a couple of years maybe.
From a business standpoint I would be taking a huge risk in paying for
raven, not that it is not worth it, but that it is risky for my
business.
Ayende is hibernating rhinos hibernating rhinos is Ayende. What if I
paid the $ and you get sucked away to war? My investment is gone plus
the cost to migrate to new db. You would need to prove to me that
raven will outlast you or make the cost worth the risk.
Now if there were 2 Ayendes (which equal 30 mortal men) it might be
different story.
> > > > Contact us <http://hibernatingrhinos.com/contact>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
your price is too high. Raven is still unproven and I would have
concerns about ravens sustainability. I really dont have a motive here
because I am not in the market for doc db, in a couple of years maybe.
From a business standpoint I would be taking a huge risk in paying for
raven, not that it is not worth it, but that it is risky for my
business.
Ayende is hibernating rhinos hibernating rhinos is Ayende. What if I
paid the $ and you get sucked away to war? My investment is gone plus
the cost to migrate to new db. You would need to prove to me that
raven will outlast you or make the cost worth the risk.
Now if there were 2 Ayendes (which equal 30 mortal men) it might be
different story.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 11:11:33 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
James,
79$ is a huge investment?
gdmk
May 19, 2010, 11:33:22 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Are you talking about SaaS as in hosted version?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM, gdmk <guy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
for me (from the startup point of view), a SaaS model for RavenDB
would be very workable (i.e. hosted by Hibernating Rhinos and not
on premise).
If you can charge per X requests that would allow me to pay very
little when I'm very small or during development, minimizing the
financial risk taken when selecting RDB for a startup while still
giving you money in case I successfully grow into a big, viable
(If
only so slightly) business.
The added benefits of SaaS are all good for me, and you might be
able
to leverage the Sharding feature to provide for more cost cuts I
would not be able to do myself.
P.S. Great product Oren!
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM, gdmk <guy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
for me (from the startup point of view), a SaaS model for RavenDB
would be very workable (i.e. hosted by Hibernating Rhinos and not
on premise).
If you can charge per X requests that would allow me to pay very
little when I'm very small or during development, minimizing the
financial risk taken when selecting RDB for a startup while still
giving you money in case I successfully grow into a big, viable
(If
only so slightly) business.
The added benefits of SaaS are all good for me, and you might be
able
to leverage the Sharding feature to provide for more cost cuts I
would not be able to do myself.
P.S. Great product Oren!
jcgrubbs
May 19, 2010, 11:46:43 AM5/19/10
to ravendb
Not to start a flame war at all...I think the work that Ayende has
done here will be an enormous benefit to the .NET community. However,
this entire thread is why I went with MongoDB :) I think this stuff
should just all be open-source. In the MongoDB world, you pay 10gen
for support and training and that's it.
//JC
done here will be an enormous benefit to the .NET community. However,
this entire thread is why I went with MongoDB :) I think this stuff
should just all be open-source. In the MongoDB world, you pay 10gen
for support and training and that's it.
//JC
Ayende Rahien
May 19, 2010, 12:17:19 PM5/19/10
to ravendb
Thank you for your input. I disagree.
TexasMensch
May 19, 2010, 12:20:19 PM5/19/10
to ravendb
79$ is not a huge investment. But its not 79$ unless i just want to
use raven for 1 month.
Thinking about this some more the price is really not the main issue.
Until I feel that ravendb is proven and supportable I wouldnt use it
in my business even if it were free.
having said that, I think that you will want as many developers using
it as possible. Maybe you should have a express version that is free
(4gig size limit - no support). The more devs that trust it the more
likely it will get used in the enterprise.
On May 19, 10:11 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> James,
> 79$ is a huge investment?
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
use raven for 1 month.
Thinking about this some more the price is really not the main issue.
Until I feel that ravendb is proven and supportable I wouldnt use it
in my business even if it were free.
having said that, I think that you will want as many developers using
it as possible. Maybe you should have a express version that is free
(4gig size limit - no support). The more devs that trust it the more
likely it will get used in the enterprise.
On May 19, 10:11 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> James,
> 79$ is a huge investment?
>
Martijn Laarman
May 19, 2010, 1:38:11 PM5/19/10
to ravendb
I always tought DB4O's approach to applying the GPL licence to in
house solutions was supurb. You can develop commercial websites using
the GPL version as long as you don't redistribute them. If RavenDB did
the same, it could mean a much higher adoption rate in whats still the
early stages of this (wonderful) product. For distributed embedded or
external intranet applications an annual comercial license, thats a
lot less steep, has to be bought. This seem to work for Versant.
house solutions was supurb. You can develop commercial websites using
the GPL version as long as you don't redistribute them. If RavenDB did
the same, it could mean a much higher adoption rate in whats still the
early stages of this (wonderful) product. For distributed embedded or
external intranet applications an annual comercial license, thats a
lot less steep, has to be bought. This seem to work for Versant.
David Wynne
May 19, 2010, 5:42:42 PM5/19/10
to ravendb
I guess I didn't have a counter office in mind - just explaining why I
said in my original tweet that I was concerned the pricing might be
prohibitive for us right now. Hopefully I've explained that.
Re: the more than just .Net thing - I'm sure you're right, my comment
was probably a bit flippant. :)
On May 19, 11:49 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the background information.
> Two points here:
> a) what is the counter offer?
> b) Raven has a lot more to offer than just written in the .NET, see my post
> about that.
>
said in my original tweet that I was concerned the pricing might be
prohibitive for us right now. Hopefully I've explained that.
Re: the more than just .Net thing - I'm sure you're right, my comment
was probably a bit flippant. :)
On May 19, 11:49 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the background information.
> Two points here:
> a) what is the counter offer?
> b) Raven has a lot more to offer than just written in the .NET, see my post
> about that.
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages