Hi @nick,
In this RFC, we have utilized the term “instance-based,” but it appears that we overlooked updating the images, which are currently labeled as “site-based.”
We intend to present a diagram illustrating various permutations and combinations in more detailed communications soon. The primary aim of this RFC was to gather general feedback on the concepts rather than delving into specifics. While we are currently referring to it as “multi-instance,” as we approach the launch, we will collaborate with the marketing and content teams to determine the best approach for communicating this to our customers.
We value your insights and will take them into account as we refine the customer experience and develop the necessary tools to assist Marketplace partners in making decisions regarding their monetization model.
1 Like
Hi Jacopo,
Thank you for your feedback and insight. We would like to assure you that there will be no lag between the customer facing launch of these features and the changes in the existing reports to provide insights to Marketplace partners.
1 Like
Hi @aragot
In recent years, our focus has been on enhancing flexibility for Marketplace partners operating on Atlassian Marketplace. During this journey, we have eliminated previous constraints like minimum per user pricing. The latest proposed adjustments align with our ongoing commitment to provide greater flexibility.
Previously, we offered recommendations such as Cloud-vs-DC pricing. However, we have consistently emphasized that pricing decisions for apps rest with the Marketplace partner. As a result, we have refrained from imposing any restrictions. Moving forward, we intend to maintain this approach by offering guidance without enforcing limitations.
Hi @ssidbury
We acknowledge your concern, and for this reason, we are maintaining an optional approach and letting Marketplace partners decide the best model for sustaining a thriving business on the Marketplace.
It is important to emphasize that the primary aim of these changes is to encourage innovation by enabling Marketplace partners to explore diverse use cases that demand flexibility, rather than causing disruption to the numerous successful businesses established on the Marketplace.
1 Like
Hi Jens, Thank you for your support and sharing your concerns with regards to to user based licensing.
We are continuously in touch with customers to validate our approach and we are incorporating the customer feedback as we are building this.
Hi @ClaraRoder
Thank you so much for your thorough and thoughtful feedback. We’re definitely happy to hear that you like the idea of multi-instance license, Jira decoupling, and per agent pricing.
Please note that all options are optional. Our aim is to provide Marketplace partners with more ways to diversify their monetization opportunities. However, we understand your concerns and will take them into consideration as we continue to formulate our plan moving forward. We certainly do not wish to complicate the process for anyone (Marketplace partners, solution partners, customers) or lead to any confusion.
We will be sharing more technical documentation soon, which should help answer some of the questions outlined here.
Thank you so much for your feedback, Natalie.
We understand your concerns about added administrative burden and complexity. Our aim is to provide partners with the tools to continue to grow and diversity their businesses, while also providing customers with choices that best suit their needs.
We are finalizing the technical details and we will share the detailed documentation in the future.
Hi @Alexandr,
Thank you for your feedback. We’re sorry to hear that you all do not see a huge value with flexible pricing and would love to know more. However, we’re happy to hear that separating JSD agents from other users resonates with you all.
1 Like
Hi @david,
Thank you for your feedback and questions.
This proposed monetization strategy is unique to the Marketplace at this time.
Hi @emil,
Thank you for the feedback. Happy to hear you all like/agree with app editions, JSM decoupling and multi-instance licensing.
We understand that there is fear of complexity and a lot of changes at once. We wanted to share this RFC to gain initial feedback around these proposed strategies. We will be sharing more as we work through the feedback.
As far as app editions go, there is actually an EAP currently taking place. While the initial set of partners have been selected, we are looking to add partners at a later date. Please let me know if you’d be interested.
Thank you for your feedback, Emre.
The licensing options will be optional for Marketplace partners.
We definitely hear your concerns and will certainly take them into account as it relates to user-based licensing, JSM agent-based, and usage based licensing. Thank you for these thorough responses.
I know you mentioned a concern about users sharing licenses. The plan would be for user-based licensing to be for named users, not a selected number of users.
Hi Yuri,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. We definitely hear and understand you are concerned about customer confusion, revenue impacts, and complicated deal processes.
We will certainly take this feedback into account. Our aim at the end of the day is work together with our partners to help them continue to grow thriving Marketplace businesses while meeting the varying needs and demands of customers.
Thank you for your feedback and question, @MattDoar
There will be changes to the Marketplace customer experience that we will introduce, however we are still fine-tuning what this would look like. More details to come in a future follow-up announcement.
Hi Boris,
We appreciate your feedback.
We recognize that top apps in the market may prefer to maintain their current pricing models, and our goal is not to mandate a complete overhaul of all app business models. Similar to any Marketplace, our objective is to offer customers a diverse range of apps that address their requirements in terms of features, while also providing pricing and packaging flexibility.
Regarding solution partners, we have started to engage with them to gather their perspectives and integrate their feedback as we develop these capabilities.
Hi Marc,
With per user pricing, customers will not be able to unlock features across editions for a set of users. Only one edition will be allowed to be purchased on a specific instance of the parent product.
Hi Chris,
Thank you for your feedback. We will continue to take it into consideration along with the other feedback we have received.
With regards to Atlassian not allowing a mix of standard and premium users in the core product, we do not intend to permit a combination of various editions of apps. If the proposal mentioned above gives the impression of such a scenario, we would appreciate the opportunity to engage with you and enhance the clarity of the communication.
Regarding the immediate uninstallation of trial licenses, we are actively exploring solutions to address this issue and will keep you informed about the timeline for implementing this solution shortly.
Hi Oliver,
As we are offering these additional capabilities to Marketplace partners, we are also enabling the right experiences for customers and Solution partners to keep things relatively simple for them.
Just to ensure that we are communicating the right message, we would like to reiterate that apps will not be able to offer multiple pricing options outside of the transition period.
We have a similar vision with regards to usage based pricing as this opens up new opportunities for Marketplace partners to invest in and we have our focus on solving for the lack of predictability for customers.
1 Like
Hi Jaroslaw, thank you for sharing your feedback and concerns.
If your JSM apps are solving a problem for every user and are used by everyone, then you are free to continue with the existing model for the apps.
For usage based pricing, we are evaluating the best way to implement this without increasing the administrative burden. We will share more details once we have locked in the final approach.
We would like to again reinforce that these changes are optional and while 6 months might look like a small time frame, it is a launch timeline from Atlassian and there is no associated deadline to adopt these flexible models.
For the additional details asked by you, we will share them in the follow-up communication.
1 Like
Thank you for your questions, Oliver.
For user-based licensing, both monthly and annual billing period will be supported. Also the user counts will be determined on the basis of permissions. The concept of per-user pricing and user tier is tied to the billing period and the same will be available for apps as well.
If compatibility of the app is selected as JSM, it will only work for JSM users and pricing will also apply to these users. If you want your app to be used by both Jira and JSM users, then you would need to continue with the current model.
Marketplace partners can choose one model over another, but we will share certain guidelines related to interplay of these models which will need to be honored when deciding an app’s monetization strategy.
1 Like