> Are you really going to invent whole other systems and processes to try to minimise how much you're using the one that you already have...
In this situation, there would likely arise a culture of "don't do extra queries". The people who can close a ticket in less queries gets to brag about cost savings at the next salary review, even if such a practice is detrimental.
Its not about being stingy, its about the user experience. Even if it is the exact same $/month, charging upfront is a better experience and sets up better incentives than nickel and diming the customer throughout the month.
I have gone through this exact thing with AWS. Where I work uses AWS, but the "pay as you go" model creates a sort of adversarial relationship. We have engineers creating tools that finds the cheapest instances given certain parameters. We have people spending time tuning configurations and build jobs to be as cheap as possible to run. Yes, it is worth it for the company to pay someone to 'optimize' our use of AWS. And that both lowers the amount of money AWS makes from us, but also makes AWS frustrating to use.
I was imagining a pricing model based on what you're calling tickets, so I'm not sure quite what your hypothetical culture would achieve, but I suspect we've misunderstood each other there.
Also, please remember that AWS was exactly the example I gave originally of a pricing model that has a deterrent effect because it's so hard to understand.
In this situation, there would likely arise a culture of "don't do extra queries". The people who can close a ticket in less queries gets to brag about cost savings at the next salary review, even if such a practice is detrimental.
Its not about being stingy, its about the user experience. Even if it is the exact same $/month, charging upfront is a better experience and sets up better incentives than nickel and diming the customer throughout the month.
I have gone through this exact thing with AWS. Where I work uses AWS, but the "pay as you go" model creates a sort of adversarial relationship. We have engineers creating tools that finds the cheapest instances given certain parameters. We have people spending time tuning configurations and build jobs to be as cheap as possible to run. Yes, it is worth it for the company to pay someone to 'optimize' our use of AWS. And that both lowers the amount of money AWS makes from us, but also makes AWS frustrating to use.