Thanks everyone for your genuinely thoughtful feedback on Coda 2.0 and our pricing structure. Today, during our team sync, someone commented that while some of the comments may be hard to hear, most of them come from a place of real appreciation for Coda and really are constructive. I wanted to say how much I appreciate that sentiment and to let you know we are definitely listening.
My hope for Coda has always been that it’d be universalーan all-in-one doc that’s accessible to anyone and applicable for almost any thing. We’ll always have a large base of makers who use us for free, and knowing how important it is for a product like ours to be easy to try and share, I felt comfortable focusing on building the product first and launching paid plans later. This approach does have a downside - for some people it implies a transition, and transitions are often hard.
We designed our pricing model such that much of our user base could stay freeーmaking sure everyone has access to the essential building blocks and common interactions. On the team side, we saw an opportunity to innovate a little. Most of our competitors charge evenly for doc makers, editors, and viewers. With Maker Billing, we decided to charge for the people who use Coda most. The idea is that by aligning with maker incentives, we encourage more collaboration and spread.
We’ve received a lot of positive responses from teams, but it’s clear from this thread that there are some scenarios for which this model doesn’t work as well.
I’ve asked the team to spend time learning more about each of these cases and make sure we are interpreting the circumstances and feedback properly. I would love if you could speak with us and help us continue to make Coda better for everyone. Email us at email@example.com and we’ll be in touch to schedule a call.
Please keep the feedback coming, and know that we are listening to every word.