First of all, I really like this option that we can use other LLMs via Forge, this will make for some neat apps!
However, I agree with @richard.white about his concerns with pricing. As an app developer, we cannot really predict how much people will use the app, so charging them seat-based while we get charge used-based is making development of apps a really risky business for us.
It is also bad for the customers, as we would have to charge customers a higher price if some other customer has high usage. The experience with forge usage shows that some customers may be responsible for the most usage.
My concerns are the same as those to the proposed forge pricing (see the concerns I voiced here Updates to Forge Pricing: Effective January 2026 - #18 by tbinna, still waiting for a reply there ):
-
If we have a few customers/licenses being the ones responsible for large usage, we as app-vendors do not have any means to influence that. Instead, all we can do is increase the pricing of our apps for the next month - so that ALL our customers will have to pay more. Is this an acceptable model for the customers, that they pay for the app-usage of other customers with higher consumption? Just to remember, one of Atlassian core values is: Don’t #@!% the customer.
-
On the other hand, looking at potential abuse, there could be customers/licenses who want to financially harm us as app-vendors: They could just create a site with a free user and an automatic job with lots of usage. We as vendors are incapable of stopping them. This is a big financial threat which is implemented fairly easily.
I really like the solutions proposed by @richard.white : We need the ability to charge the customers based on usage (after a free tier maybe?) Additionally, we need at least the ability to disable usage for a given site from the developer console to prevent potential abuse.