Stories with Tag Pricing

• How much do you think it costs to make a pair of Nike shoes in Asia?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-04-09 12:58:39

  Verbose tl;dr

  The estimated manufacturing cost of a pair of Nike shoes in Asia is around $25-$50, according to a breakdown by a supposed industry insider. This includes roughly $12-16 for materials, $8-10 for labor, $2-3 for factory overhead, and $3-5 for freight/shipping. These figures are presented as educated guesses based on experience and don't account for research and development, marketing, or other business expenses which significantly contribute to the final retail price. The author emphasizes the difference between manufacturing cost and the retail price, highlighting the significant markup driven by brand value, marketing, and other factors.

  The original Twitter thread meticulously deconstructs the cost of manufacturing a pair of Nike shoes in Asia, focusing specifically on Vietnam. The author posits that the retail price of $130 is dramatically higher than the actual production cost. They break this down into several key components. Firstly, the raw materials, encompassing everything from the rubber for the sole to the laces and synthetic fabrics for the upper, are estimated to cost a mere $12. This figure is arrived at through careful consideration of material types and quantities required for a standard pair of athletic shoes.

  Secondly, labor costs in Vietnamese factories are significantly lower than in Western countries. The author estimates the labor involved in assembling a single pair of Nikes to be around $3, based on prevailing wage rates and the estimated time required for the manufacturing process. This includes cutting, stitching, gluing, and final finishing of the footwear. The relatively low labor cost is a key factor in Nike's decision to offshore production to Asian countries.

  Beyond materials and labor, the thread also factors in the cost of factory overhead. This includes expenses such as electricity to power the machinery, rent or mortgage payments for the factory space, and the general upkeep and maintenance of the equipment. While these costs are less directly tied to individual shoe production, they are still essential to the overall manufacturing process and are estimated to add another $3 to the total per-pair cost.

  Adding these three primary cost components – materials, labor, and overhead – brings the estimated manufacturing cost to approximately $18 per pair. This leaves a substantial difference between the cost of production and the $130 retail price. The author highlights this disparity and implies that a significant portion of the retail price covers other expenses such as shipping, marketing, research and development, design, and of course, profit margins for both Nike and the retailers selling the shoes. While the thread doesn't explicitly detail these additional costs, it strongly suggests that the actual manufacturing cost in Asia is a relatively small fraction of the final retail price paid by consumers. The thread concludes by emphasizing this stark contrast, leaving the reader to contemplate the complexities of global supply chains and pricing strategies within the footwear industry.

  • Nike
  • Manufacturing Costs
  • asia
  • Shoes
  • Footwear
  • Production
  • Labor Costs
  • Supply Chain
  • economics
  • Business
  • Pricing

  Summary of Comments ( 45 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43631543

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters discuss the complexities of calculating the true cost of Nike shoe production. Several point out that the $20 figure cited by the original Twitter thread likely only represents direct labor and material costs, neglecting significant expenses like R&D, marketing, shipping, tariffs, and retail markup. Some commenters with manufacturing experience suggest a factory cost closer to $30-40, while others argue the true cost, including all associated expenses, could be much higher. The thread also touches upon the difficulties in accurately assessing factory conditions and worker treatment based solely on cost estimates. Finally, some commenters express skepticism about the overall business model of high-priced athletic shoes.

  The Hacker News post "How much do you think it costs to make a pair of Nike shoes in Asia?" generated a fair number of comments discussing the cost breakdown of manufacturing Nike shoes. Several commenters focused on differentiating between manufacturing costs and other associated expenses.

  One compelling line of discussion revolved around the distinction between manufacturing cost (materials and labor) and landed cost (which includes manufacturing, shipping, import duties, and other fees). A commenter estimated the manufacturing cost in the $10-20 range, while acknowledging that the landed cost could be significantly higher. Others agreed with this assessment, emphasizing that factors like tariffs and shipping could easily double the cost.

  Another commenter highlighted the different tiers of shoe quality and corresponding manufacturing costs. They suggested that a basic, simple running shoe would likely have a lower manufacturing cost than a more complex design involving advanced materials and construction techniques. This introduced nuance into the conversation, suggesting the impossibility of a single definitive answer to the original question.

  Several users discussed the markup on Nike shoes, comparing the estimated manufacturing cost to the retail price. They pointed to the high profit margins enjoyed by brands like Nike, attributing this to factors such as marketing, research and development, and brand recognition. This thread touched upon the value consumers place on branding and the economics of the athletic footwear market.

  A few commenters also mentioned the potential variations in manufacturing costs across different countries in Asia. They alluded to differences in labor costs, materials sourcing, and factory overhead, suggesting that the specific location of production within Asia could influence the final cost.

  Finally, one commenter offered a more detailed breakdown, suggesting a $5 figure for materials, $3 for labor, and $2 for factory overhead, arriving at a $10 total manufacturing cost. While not definitively verifiable, this provided a more granular perspective on the potential cost components.

  Overall, the comments section provided a lively discussion of the various factors influencing the cost of producing Nike shoes in Asia. While no definitive figure was established, the comments offered valuable insights into the complexities of global manufacturing, cost breakdowns, and the economics of the athletic footwear industry.

• GPT 4.5 level for 1% of the price

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-16 10:23:46

  Verbose tl;dr

  Baidu claims their new Ernie 3.5 Titan model achieves performance comparable to GPT-4 at significantly lower cost. This enhanced model boasts improvements in training efficiency and inference speed, alongside upgrades to its comprehension, generation, and reasoning abilities. These advancements allow for more efficient and cost-effective deployment for various applications.

  The Twitter post from Baidu, titled "GPT 4.5 level for 1% of the price," announces a significant development in the field of large language models (LLMs). Baidu asserts that their newly developed artificial intelligence model, ERNIE 3.5 Titan, has achieved performance comparable to the highly advanced GPT 4.5, while simultaneously boasting a dramatically reduced cost of operation. This cost reduction, quantified as a staggering 99% decrease compared to GPT 4.5, represents a potential paradigm shift in the accessibility and affordability of cutting-edge AI technology. Baidu posits that this breakthrough will democratize access to powerful language models, opening up a plethora of opportunities for businesses and researchers who were previously priced out of utilizing such advanced capabilities. The implication is that ERNIE 3.5 Titan offers substantially similar performance to OpenAI's GPT 4.5 at a fraction of the financial investment, potentially disrupting the current landscape of LLM deployment and research. This announcement highlights Baidu's commitment to advancing the field of AI and making sophisticated language models more readily available to a wider audience.

  • GPT-4.5
  • Large Language Model
  • LLM
  • AI
  • artificial intelligence
  • Pricing
  • Cost Reduction
  • Affordable AI
  • Baidu

  Summary of Comments ( 152 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43377962

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN users discuss the claim of GPT 4.5 level performance at significantly reduced cost. Some express skepticism, citing potential differences in context windows, training data quality, and reasoning abilities not reflected in simple benchmarks. Others point out the rapid pace of open-source development, suggesting similar capabilities might become even cheaper soon. Several commenters eagerly anticipate trying the new model, while others raise concerns about the lack of transparency regarding training data and potential biases. The feasibility of running such a model locally also generates discussion, with some highlighting hardware requirements as a potential barrier. There's a general feeling of cautious optimism, tempered by a desire for more concrete evidence of the claimed performance.

  The Hacker News post titled "GPT 4.5 level for 1% of the price" links to a 2012 tweet from Baidu announcing their Deep Neural Network processing speech with dramatically improved accuracy. The discussion in the comments focuses on the cyclical nature of hype around AI and the difficulty of predicting long-term progress.

  Several commenters express skepticism about comparing a 2012 advancement in speech recognition to the capabilities of large language models like GPT-4.5. They point out that these are distinct areas of AI research and that directly comparing them based on cost is misleading.

  One commenter highlights the frequent pattern of inflated expectations followed by disillusionment in AI, referencing Gartner's hype cycle. They suggest that while impressive at the time, the 2012 Baidu announcement represents a specific incremental step rather than a fundamental breakthrough comparable to more recent advancements in LLMs.

  Another commenter recalls the atmosphere of excitement around deep learning in the early 2010s, contrasting it with the then-dominant approaches to speech recognition. They suggest that the tweet, viewed in its historical context, captures a moment of genuine progress, even if the long-term implications were difficult to foresee.

  A few comments delve into the specifics of Baidu's work at the time, discussing the use of deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition. They acknowledge the significance of this approach, which paved the way for subsequent advancements in the field.

  Overall, the comments reflect a cautious perspective on comparing advancements across different AI subfields and different time periods. While acknowledging the historical significance of Baidu's 2012 achievement in speech recognition, they emphasize the distinct nature of current large language model advancements and caution against drawing simplistic cost comparisons. The discussion highlights the cyclical nature of AI hype and the challenges in predicting long-term technological progress.

• "Do you not like money?"

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-26 13:47:33

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post "Do you not like money?" argues that many open-source maintainers undervalue their work and fail to seek appropriate compensation. It points out the discrepancy between the significant value open-source software provides to companies and the often negligible or non-existent financial support offered to the individuals creating and maintaining it. The author urges maintainers to recognize their worth and explore various avenues for monetization, such as accepting donations, offering commercial licenses, or finding sponsorships, emphasizing that getting paid for essential work is not greedy but rather a sustainable way to ensure the health and longevity of vital projects.

  The author, Ruben, in a post titled "Do you not like money?", delves into a nuanced exploration of the complexities surrounding financial motivations within the software development industry. He begins by positing the seemingly straightforward question of whether developers prioritize monetary compensation, framing it within the context of job searching and career decisions. He observes that while financial stability is undeniably important, the pursuit of wealth shouldn't be the sole driving force behind one's professional choices.

  Ruben then proceeds to dissect the multifaceted nature of job satisfaction, arguing that focusing exclusively on maximizing income can lead to neglecting other crucial aspects of a fulfilling career. He elaborates on the significance of factors such as work-life balance, the intellectual stimulation derived from challenging projects, the opportunity for personal and professional growth, and the positive impact a particular role might have on the wider world. He suggests that a singular focus on monetary gain can, paradoxically, lead to diminished overall happiness and professional fulfillment in the long run.

  Further expanding his argument, Ruben highlights the importance of aligning one's work with their personal values and passions. He contends that true job satisfaction stems from finding a role that resonates with one's intrinsic motivations, enabling a sense of purpose and meaning beyond mere financial compensation. He emphasizes that pursuing a career solely for monetary reasons can lead to a sense of disconnect and ultimately diminish the joy and engagement one derives from their work.

  He acknowledges the practical realities of needing to earn a living and the validity of considering financial security when making career choices. However, he cautions against allowing the pursuit of wealth to eclipse other equally important considerations, such as the overall quality of the work environment, the opportunities for intellectual growth, and the alignment of the role with one's personal values. In essence, Ruben advocates for a holistic approach to career decision-making, where financial considerations are balanced against a broader set of criteria that contribute to long-term job satisfaction and overall well-being. He concludes by encouraging developers to introspectively examine their motivations and strive for a balanced perspective that integrates financial stability with a genuine passion for their craft and a commitment to finding fulfilling and meaningful work.

  • Freelancing
  • consulting
  • Pricing
  • value
  • negotiation
  • Sales
  • Business
  • money
  • career
  • getting paid
  • worth
  • self-employment

  Summary of Comments ( 20 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43183568

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the article – that many open-source maintainers are leaving due to burnout and lack of compensation – and shared similar experiences. Several commenters pointed out the difficulty in monetizing open source projects, especially those used by hobbyists or small companies, and the pressure to keep projects free even when facing increasing maintenance burdens. Some discussed the efficacy of various monetization strategies like GitHub Sponsors and dual licensing, with mixed opinions on their success. Others highlighted the broader issue of valuing free labor and the unrealistic expectation that maintainers should dedicate their time without compensation. A few commenters offered practical advice for maintainers, such as setting clear boundaries and communicating expectations to users.

  The Hacker News post "Do you not like money?" with ID 43183568, referencing the article "Do you not like money?" on rubenerd.com, has generated several comments discussing the nuances of valuing money and work-life balance.

  A significant number of commenters agree with the author's premise that relentlessly pursuing increased income isn't the only path to happiness. They argue that prioritizing personal time, hobbies, and mental well-being can be equally, if not more, valuable. Some share personal anecdotes of downshifting their careers, accepting lower salaries for reduced stress and increased free time, and finding greater fulfillment as a result. These comments often emphasize the importance of defining one's own values and pursuing a life that aligns with them, rather than blindly chasing societal expectations of financial success.

  Several commenters discuss the concept of "enough," highlighting the diminishing returns of wealth beyond a certain point. They argue that past a certain income level, the additional money contributes less to overall happiness and may even come at the cost of increased stress and responsibility. Some suggest that focusing on optimizing for time and flexibility, rather than maximizing income, can lead to a richer and more fulfilling life.

  Some dissenting voices express skepticism about the feasibility of downshifting, citing financial obligations, family responsibilities, and the competitive nature of the job market. These comments raise practical concerns about the privilege inherent in being able to choose lower-paying jobs and acknowledge that not everyone has the luxury of prioritizing personal time over financial stability. They argue that while the author's points are valid for some, they don't necessarily apply universally.

  Another thread of discussion revolves around the definition of "rich." Some commenters argue that true wealth encompasses more than just financial assets, including factors like health, relationships, and personal fulfillment. They suggest that focusing solely on monetary wealth can lead to a narrow and ultimately unsatisfying definition of success.

  Finally, a few commenters offer alternative perspectives on the value of work, suggesting that challenging and meaningful work can be a source of fulfillment in itself, regardless of the salary. They argue that finding work that aligns with one's passions and skills can contribute significantly to overall well-being.

  Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post offer a diverse range of perspectives on the relationship between money, work, and happiness. While many agree with the author's core message about prioritizing personal well-being over maximizing income, others raise important counterpoints about the practical realities and individual circumstances that influence these decisions. The discussion highlights the complexity of navigating these choices and underscores the importance of defining one's own values and pursuing a life that aligns with them.

• S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-05 11:05:40

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post explores the potential of the newly released S1 processor as a competitor to the Apple R1, particularly in the realm of ultra-low-power embedded applications. The author highlights the S1's remarkably low $6 price point and its impressive power efficiency, consuming just microwatts of power. While acknowledging the S1's limitations in terms of processing power and memory compared to the R1, the post emphasizes its suitability for specific use cases like wearables and IoT devices where cost and power consumption are paramount. The author ultimately concludes that while not a direct replacement, the S1 offers a compelling alternative for applications where the R1's capabilities are overkill and its higher cost prohibitive.

  The blog post, titled "S1: A $6 R1 Competitor?", delves into the intriguing possibility of the newly announced S1 development board posing a viable challenge to the widely-used Raspberry Pi R1, particularly considering its remarkably low price point of $6. The author initiates the discussion by acknowledging the initial skepticism that often accompanies such low-cost hardware announcements, yet expresses a cautious optimism grounded in the S1's specifications and the reputation of its manufacturer, Allwinner.

  The post proceeds to meticulously dissect the S1's technical capabilities, comparing them directly with the R1. A central focus of this comparison revolves around the processing power, where the S1, equipped with a single-core C906 RISC-V processor clocked at 1 GHz, stands against the R1's single-core ARM1176JZF-S processor running at 700 MHz. While acknowledging the architectural differences and the potential performance variations stemming from them, the author postulates that the S1's higher clock speed might offer a performance advantage in certain scenarios. Further comparison points encompass memory capacity, with the S1 boasting a seemingly superior 64MB of RAM compared to the R1's 256MB, although the author speculates on the potential for different memory configurations of the S1 to emerge.

  Connectivity options also undergo scrutiny, highlighting the S1's inclusion of Wi-Fi 4 and Bluetooth 5, contrasted with the R1's lack of integrated wireless capabilities. The blog post underscores the significant advantage this grants the S1 in terms of out-of-the-box connectivity for internet-enabled applications. Furthermore, the presence of a video output capable of supporting up to 1080p resolution on the S1 is juxtaposed with the R1's composite video output, suggesting a potential advantage for the S1 in applications requiring higher resolution displays.

  The author also explores the implications of the S1's utilization of the open-source RISC-V architecture, contrasting it with the ARM architecture found in the R1. This discussion touches upon the potential benefits of the RISC-V ecosystem, including increased flexibility and potential cost reductions for manufacturers.

  Concluding the analysis, the author reiterates the impressive nature of the S1's specifications, especially considering its exceptionally low cost. While acknowledging the need for further testing and real-world benchmarks to definitively assess the S1's performance against the R1, the initial assessment suggests that the S1 could indeed present a compelling alternative, particularly for price-sensitive applications and projects within the maker and hobbyist communities. The open-ended nature of the title reflects the author's cautiously optimistic perspective, leaving room for future evaluation and comparisons once the S1 becomes more readily available.

  • S1
  • R1
  • Cloud Computing
  • Serverless
  • Pricing
  • Competition
  • AWS
  • Alternatives
  • Infrastructure as a Service
  • IaaS
  • PaaS
  • Platform as a Service
  • performance
  • Cost Comparison
  • benchmarking

  Summary of Comments ( 341 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42946854

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the potential of the S1 chip as a viable competitor to the Apple R1, focusing primarily on price and functionality. Some expressed skepticism about the S1's claimed capabilities, particularly its ultra-wideband (UWB) performance, given the lower price point. Others questioned the practicality of its open-source nature for the average consumer, highlighting potential security concerns and the need for technical expertise to implement it. Several commenters were interested in the potential applications of a cheaper UWB chip, citing potential uses in precise indoor location tracking and device interaction. A few pointed out the limited information available and the need for further testing and real-world benchmarks to validate the S1's performance claims. The overall sentiment leaned towards cautious optimism, with many acknowledging the potential disruptive impact of a low-cost UWB chip but reserving judgment until more concrete evidence is available.

  The Hacker News post titled "S1: A $6 R1 competitor?" with the ID 42946854 generated a moderate amount of discussion, primarily focused on the feasibility and potential market impact of the S1 chip discussed in the linked blog post.

  Several commenters expressed skepticism about the S1's ability to genuinely compete with the Raspberry Pi R1, particularly at the stated price point. They questioned the inclusion of essential components like the power supply and WiFi module in the $6 cost, suggesting that the final price would likely be higher. Some pointed out the potential for hidden costs associated with manufacturing and distribution, particularly given the current global economic climate.

  Others discussed the limited information provided about the S1's specifications, highlighting the need for more detailed benchmarks and comparisons to other low-cost microcontrollers. The lack of readily available documentation was also mentioned as a barrier to adoption. One commenter questioned the chip's suitability for real-world applications, suggesting that its performance might be insufficient for anything beyond basic tasks.

  A few commenters were more optimistic about the S1's potential, particularly for educational purposes and simple embedded systems. They acknowledged the limitations of the chip but argued that its low price could make it an attractive option for specific use cases. The possibility of using the S1 for small, battery-powered projects was also mentioned.

  One commenter raised concerns about the environmental impact of disposable electronics, arguing that the S1's low price could encourage wasteful practices. They suggested that a focus on repairability and longevity would be more sustainable in the long run.

  Some users diverted from the main topic, discussing alternative low-cost microcontrollers and their experiences with similar projects. This tangential discussion touched upon the broader trends in the embedded systems market and the increasing demand for affordable computing solutions.

  Overall, the comments reflect a cautious interest in the S1 chip, with many commenters waiting for more concrete information before forming a definitive opinion. The discussion highlights the importance of transparency and realistic expectations when introducing a new product to a discerning audience like the Hacker News community.

• Show HN: Calculate Your Revenue

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-03 10:47:33

  Verbose tl;dr

  Postmake.io/revenue offers a simple calculator to help businesses quickly estimate their annual recurring revenue (ARR). Users input their number of customers, average revenue per customer (ARPU), and customer churn rate to calculate current ARR, ARR growth potential, and potential revenue loss due to churn. The tool aims to provide a straightforward way to understand these key metrics and their impact on overall revenue, facilitating better financial planning.

  The Hacker News post titled "Show HN: Calculate Your Revenue" introduces a straightforward, web-based calculator designed to assist individuals, particularly those involved in online businesses or subscription services, in quickly determining their potential revenue. This uncomplicated tool presents a minimalist user interface featuring only the essential input fields required for the calculation: the number of customers, the price per customer, and the desired time period for projection (selectable as monthly or annual).

  Upon entering these three values, the calculator instantaneously displays the calculated revenue, eliminating the need for manual computations or the use of more complex spreadsheet software. This streamlined approach focuses on providing a rapid and readily accessible means of revenue estimation, ideal for quick assessments or on-the-fly calculations. The tool is presented as a publicly available web application, accessible directly through a provided URL, allowing any user with an internet connection to utilize its functionality without needing to download or install any software. Its purpose is clearly defined as a simple, convenient, and freely available utility for basic revenue forecasting.

  • revenue
  • calculator
  • finance
  • Business
  • startup
  • SaaS
  • Financial Modeling
  • Pricing
  • Sales
  • forecasting

  Summary of Comments ( 0 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42916934

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users generally reacted positively to Postmake's revenue calculator. Several commenters praised its simplicity and ease of use, finding it a helpful tool for quick calculations. Some suggested potential improvements, like adding more sophisticated features for calculating recurring revenue or including churn rate. One commenter pointed out the importance of considering customer lifetime value (CLTV) alongside revenue. A few expressed skepticism about the long-term viability of relying on a third-party tool for such calculations, suggesting spreadsheets or custom-built solutions as alternatives. Overall, the comments reflected an appreciation for a simple, accessible tool while also highlighting the need for more robust solutions for complex revenue modeling.

  The Hacker News post "Show HN: Calculate Your Revenue" linking to postmake.io/revenue generated several comments, largely focusing on the simplicity of the tool and its potential usefulness, while also pointing out some limitations and suggesting improvements.

  Several commenters appreciated the clean and straightforward design of the calculator. One user praised its minimalist approach, finding it refreshing compared to more complex tools. Another echoed this sentiment, highlighting the ease with which they could quickly calculate revenue based on different pricing scenarios. The intuitive nature of the tool was a common theme, with users expressing satisfaction in its ability to provide quick answers without requiring extensive input or navigation.

  However, some commenters pointed out areas where the calculator could be improved. One suggestion involved adding the ability to factor in churn rate, a crucial metric for subscription-based businesses. This addition would provide a more realistic revenue projection by accounting for customer loss over time. Another commenter suggested incorporating a feature to calculate lifetime value (LTV), further enhancing the tool's ability to provide valuable business insights.

  The limitations of a simple model were also acknowledged. One user pointed out that while helpful for basic calculations, the tool doesn't account for the complexities of real-world businesses, such as varying conversion rates or fluctuating customer acquisition costs. These factors, they argued, significantly impact revenue and should ideally be considered for a more comprehensive analysis.

  There was also a brief discussion regarding the platform on which the calculator was built. One commenter inquired about the choice of technology, expressing interest in the development process. The creator responded, clarifying the use of Next.js and Vercel, and briefly explained their reasoning for choosing these technologies.

  A few commenters also offered alternative tools or methods for revenue calculation. One mentioned using spreadsheets for more complex scenarios, while another suggested exploring dedicated SaaS metrics platforms for a more in-depth analysis. These suggestions offered a broader perspective on revenue calculation, highlighting the diverse range of available tools.

  Finally, a minor point of discussion revolved around the calculator's presentation. One commenter suggested a small visual improvement, specifically recommending a different font choice. While a relatively minor detail, it exemplifies the level of scrutiny the tool received from the Hacker News community.

• Solving complex billable metrics with custom SQL expressions in Lago

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-27 12:12:47

  Verbose tl;dr

  Lago's blog post details how their billing platform now supports custom SQL expressions for defining billable metrics. This allows businesses with complex pricing models greater flexibility and control over how they charge customers. Instead of relying on predefined metrics, users can now write SQL queries directly within Lago to calculate charges based on virtually any data they collect, including custom events and attributes. This simplifies the implementation of usage-based billing scenarios like charging per API call with specific parameters, tiered pricing based on aggregate usage, or dynamic pricing based on real-time data. The post emphasizes how this feature reduces development time and empowers product and finance teams to manage billing logic without extensive engineering involvement.

  The Lago blog post, "Solving complex billable metrics with custom SQL expressions in Lago," details how Lago's platform now allows users to define highly customized billable metrics using SQL expressions, offering greater flexibility and control over billing logic. Traditionally, subscription billing systems struggle with complex, usage-based pricing models. Lago addresses this challenge by enabling users to leverage the power and expressiveness of SQL directly within their billing engine. This allows for the creation of intricate metrics tailored to unique business requirements, moving beyond simple, pre-defined metrics.

  The post emphasizes the limitations of traditional subscription management platforms, where metrics are often rigid and lack the granularity needed for complex scenarios. For instance, if a business wants to charge based on a specific interaction or a combination of factors, traditional systems may fall short. Lago's custom SQL expressions provide a solution by allowing users to define billable metrics based on any data stored within their Lago instance. This empowers businesses to implement sophisticated pricing models, such as tiered pricing based on specific usage patterns, or hybrid models combining usage with subscription fees.

  The blog post provides a practical example of calculating the number of weekly active users (WAU) with a custom SQL expression, demonstrating how this feature can be used in a real-world scenario. This example highlights the flexibility and power of the SQL-based approach, allowing businesses to calculate metrics that are precisely aligned with their specific definition of an "active user." This granular control enables more accurate and transparent billing, reducing the risk of disputes and improving customer relationships.

  Furthermore, the post emphasizes the extensibility of this feature, suggesting that any aggregatable data within the Lago platform can be used to construct custom billable metrics. This opens up numerous possibilities for innovative pricing models and allows businesses to tailor their billing to reflect the true value delivered to their customers. By bringing the power of SQL to billing metric definition, Lago simplifies the implementation of complex pricing structures, enabling businesses to experiment with and adapt to evolving market demands without being constrained by rigid billing systems. This ultimately allows businesses to focus on their core product and value proposition rather than wrestling with intricate billing logic.

  • SaaS
  • Billing
  • Metrics
  • SQL
  • Custom SQL
  • Lago
  • Billable Metrics
  • Subscription Billing
  • Usage-Based Billing
  • Pricing
  • Fintech
  • software engineering
  • Software Development
  • API

  Summary of Comments ( 0 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42840303

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss Lago's approach to flexible billing using custom SQL expressions. Some express concerns about the potential complexity and debugging challenges of using SQL for this purpose, suggesting simpler alternatives like formula-based systems. Others highlight the power and flexibility SQL offers for handling complex billing scenarios, especially for businesses with intricate pricing models. A few commenters question the performance implications of using SQL queries for real-time billing calculations and suggest pre-aggregation or caching strategies. There's also discussion around the trade-off between flexibility and auditability, with concerns about the potential difficulty in understanding and verifying SQL-based billing logic. Some users share their experiences with similar systems, emphasizing the importance of thorough testing and validation.

  The Hacker News post "Solving complex billable metrics with custom SQL expressions in Lago" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42840303 has generated several comments discussing the merits and drawbacks of Lago's approach to billing using custom SQL expressions.

  One commenter expresses concern about vendor lock-in, suggesting that relying on a specific vendor's SQL dialect for defining billing logic could create difficulties if migrating to a different platform in the future. They propose that a standardized approach, perhaps using something like CEL (Common Expression Language), might be a better long-term strategy.

  Another commenter points out the inherent complexity of billing systems and argues that SQL, despite its potential for vendor lock-in, is a reasonable choice due to its widespread familiarity and the existing tooling available for working with it. They acknowledge that no single solution will be perfect for every scenario but suggest that SQL offers a good balance between flexibility and accessibility. This comment sparked further discussion about the benefits of standardization versus the practicality of using existing, well-understood tools.

  Building on the vendor lock-in concern, another user notes the potential for "gotchas" within custom SQL implementations. They highlight that subtle differences in how SQL dialects handle specific functions or data types could lead to unexpected billing discrepancies. This reinforces the argument for careful consideration and thorough testing when employing custom SQL for billing.

  A different perspective is offered by a commenter who appreciates the transparency and control that custom SQL expressions can provide. They argue that being able to directly define billing logic in SQL allows for greater flexibility and customization compared to relying on pre-defined billing models. This, they suggest, can be particularly beneficial for businesses with unique or complex billing requirements.

  There's also a brief discussion about the potential performance implications of using custom SQL for billing. One commenter raises the question of how Lago handles the execution of these SQL expressions and whether it could introduce performance bottlenecks, especially with large datasets. This concern, however, wasn't addressed directly in the comments.

  Finally, some commenters mention alternative approaches to billing, including using tools like Stripe Billing or building custom in-house solutions. These suggestions highlight the range of options available to businesses and emphasize the importance of choosing the right solution based on specific needs and constraints.

• Why does Cloudflare Pages have such a generous Free tier?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-15 15:55:13

  Verbose tl;dr

  Cloudflare Pages' generous free tier is a strategic move to onboard users into the Cloudflare ecosystem. By offering free static site hosting with features like custom domains, CI/CD, and serverless functions, Cloudflare attracts developers who might then upgrade to paid services for added features or higher usage limits. This freemium model fosters early adoption and loyalty, potentially leading users to utilize other Cloudflare products like Workers, R2, or their CDN, generating revenue for the company in the long run. Essentially, the free tier acts as a lead generation and customer acquisition tool, leveraging the low cost of static hosting to draw in users who may eventually become paying customers for the broader platform.

  Matt Sayar's blog post, "Why does Cloudflare Pages have such a generous Free tier?", delves into the strategic reasoning behind Cloudflare's remarkably liberal free offering for its Pages product, a static site hosting service. Sayar argues that Cloudflare isn't simply being altruistic; instead, the free tier functions as a sophisticated, multi-faceted investment in future growth and market dominance. He outlines several key justifications for this strategy.

  Firstly, the free tier serves as a potent customer acquisition tool. By removing the financial barrier to entry, Cloudflare attracts a vast pool of users, including hobbyists, students, and early-stage startups. This broad user base creates a substantial network effect, enriching the Cloudflare ecosystem and increasing the likelihood of these free users eventually converting to paying customers as their projects scale and require more advanced features. This "land and expand" strategy allows Cloudflare to capture market share early and nurture long-term customer relationships.

  Secondly, the free tier acts as a powerful marketing mechanism. The sheer volume of projects hosted on the free tier generates significant organic publicity and positive word-of-mouth referrals. This organic growth is significantly more cost-effective than traditional advertising campaigns and contributes to solidifying Cloudflare's brand recognition within the developer community.

  Thirdly, the marginal cost of hosting static sites is remarkably low for a company with Cloudflare's existing infrastructure. Leveraging their extensive global network, Cloudflare can accommodate a large volume of free tier users without incurring substantial additional expenses. This allows them to provide a generous free service while minimizing financial strain.

  Furthermore, the free tier cultivates a loyal user base familiar with the Cloudflare ecosystem. This familiarity fosters "stickiness," making users more inclined to choose other Cloudflare products and services as their needs evolve beyond static hosting. This cross-selling potential further strengthens Cloudflare's market position and diversifies its revenue streams.

  Finally, offering a free tier allows Cloudflare to rapidly iterate and improve its Pages product based on real-world usage from a large and diverse user base. This constant stream of feedback and data allows for continuous optimization and innovation, ultimately leading to a more robust and competitive product offering in the long run.

  In conclusion, Sayar posits that Cloudflare's generous free tier for Pages isn't a charitable act but rather a calculated, long-term investment. By attracting users, building brand loyalty, leveraging existing infrastructure, and fostering product development, the free tier strategically positions Cloudflare for sustained growth and market leadership within the competitive landscape of static site hosting and beyond.

  • Cloudflare Pages
  • Free Tier
  • Generous Free Tier
  • Serverless
  • Static Site Hosting
  • Jamstack
  • Website Deployment
  • Cloudflare
  • Pricing
  • Web Development
  • Cloud Computing
  • CDN
  • Edge Computing
  • Competitive Analysis
  • Business Strategy
  • Freemium Model

  Summary of Comments ( 22 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42712433

  Verbose tl;dr

  Several commenters on Hacker News speculate about Cloudflare's motivations for the generous free tier of Pages. Some believe it's a loss-leader to draw developers into the Cloudflare ecosystem, hoping they'll eventually upgrade to paid services for Workers, R2, or other offerings. Others suggest it's a strategic move to compete with Vercel and Netlify, grabbing market share and potentially becoming the dominant player in the Jamstack space. A few highlight the cost-effectiveness of Pages for Cloudflare, arguing the marginal cost of serving static assets is minimal compared to the potential gains. Some express concern about potential future pricing changes once Cloudflare secures a larger market share, while others praise the transparency of the free tier limits. Several commenters share positive experiences using Pages, emphasizing its ease of use and integration with other Cloudflare services.

  The Hacker News post "Why does Cloudflare Pages have such a generous Free tier?" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a mix of speculation and informed opinions. No one definitively answers the question, but several compelling theories emerge from the commentary.

  Several commenters suggest that Cloudflare's generous free tier is a strategic move to gain market share and lock-in developers. This "land and expand" strategy is a common practice in the tech industry, where a company offers a compelling free tier to attract users, hoping they'll eventually upgrade to paid plans as their needs grow. This argument is bolstered by observations that Cloudflare's free tier is remarkably robust, offering features comparable to paid tiers of other providers. One commenter specifically mentions that the inclusion of unlimited bandwidth in the free tier makes it extremely attractive, even for moderately sized projects.

  Another commenter suggests that the free tier acts as a massive, distributed honeypot for Cloudflare. By having millions of sites on their free tier, Cloudflare gains invaluable real-world data about traffic patterns, attack vectors, and various edge cases. This data can then be used to improve their overall security infrastructure and refine their paid offerings. This allows them to constantly improve their services and offer better protection to their paying customers.

  The ease of use and integration with other Cloudflare services is also mentioned as a contributing factor to the generosity of the free tier. Several commenters point out that Pages integrates seamlessly with other Cloudflare products, encouraging users to adopt the entire Cloudflare ecosystem. This "stickiness" within the ecosystem benefits Cloudflare by creating a loyal customer base and reducing churn.

  Some commenters express concern about the long-term viability of such a generous free tier. They question whether Cloudflare can sustain these free services indefinitely and speculate about potential future limitations or price increases. However, others argue that the benefits of market share and data collection outweigh the costs of providing free services, at least for the foreseeable future.

  Finally, a few commenters speculate that Cloudflare might be leveraging the free tier to attract talent. By offering a powerful and free platform, they attract developers who become familiar with Cloudflare's technology. This can potentially lead to recruitment opportunities and a larger pool of skilled individuals familiar with their products.

  While the precise reasons behind Cloudflare's generous free tier remain undisclosed by the company in the comments, the Hacker News discussion offers several plausible explanations, revolving around strategic market positioning, data acquisition, ecosystem building, and potential talent acquisition.