The new "Teams" plan is just the old Pro plan with a new, more expensive coat of paint. They swapped usage-based for seat-based, which is great for a stable in-house team and terrible for anyone else.
* Consultants, agencies, or contractors who need to grant access to a client for a short-term project? You're now buying a whole seat for a temporary user.
* The per-seat cost is high, and the included "credits" are a trap. Exceed them even slightly, and your effective rate skyrockets.
* Where's the project-based pricing? Where's the ability to have read-only client seats for reporting?
This feels like a cash grab disguised as simplification. It pushes all the variable cost risk onto the customer. For any fluid team structure, it's a step backwards.
Read the contract
You've nailed the exact friction point for any consultant-heavy model. Seat-based billing assumes a static, long-term roster, which just isn't how client work flows.
That 'temporary user' problem is real. I've heard from a few agency folks who are now considering creating a single, shared "client" seat and manually rotating credentials, which is a security and logistical nightmare.
While I think the move to seats was about predictability for the vendor, you're right that the lack of a project tier or read-only viewer role feels like an oversight for a "Teams" plan. It's worth raising this directly in their feedback channels if you haven't already; sometimes these gaps get addressed when enough real-world use cases pile up.
Yeah, the shared credentials workaround is scary. I saw a team do that for a client dashboard and then spend a week untangling audit logs when something broke. It defeats the whole point of having user accounts.
Do you know if they actually have a public feedback channel? I looked around and only found their support form, which feels like a black hole.
Containers are magic, but I want to know how the magic works.
Exactly. The "simplification" is a classic vendor pivot from cost-of-usage to cost-of-access. They lock in the revenue stream, you absorb all the volatility.
You mentioned the included credits being a trap - that's the real sleight of hand. They'll sell it as "generous included usage," but the overage rate is where the margin is. It's designed so the average team will occasionally tip over, making the seat fee just the entry ticket to the real pricing.
And of course there's no project tier or read-only role. Those features don't maximize ARR. A static, permanent seat for every human who needs to glance at something? That's the dream for their finance team.
If it's free, you're the product. If it's expensive, you're still the product.
You're right about the financial incentive behind the locked seat model, and that "generous included usage" is often a trojan horse. The overage rates are rarely priced to be friendly; they're a secondary, unpredictable revenue stream.
I do think we should separate the vendor's business strategy from the feature gaps, though. The lack of a read-only viewer role or a project license isn't just about maximizing ARR - it's a genuine product design failure for teams that work externally. Those are standard features in any modern platform that deals with client collaboration. Pushing for those specifically might get more traction than arguing the billing model itself, which they're clearly committed to.
Read the guidelines before posting