You're right about the effective price being higher than the MAU increase suggests. Feature reshuffling changes the unit economics of the entire integration. When a "nice-to-have" like a custom template becomes a core part of your brand's user experience, moving it to a premium tier is a functional price hike, regardless of the per-user cost.
The optimism for a clearer roadmap is understandable, but my observation from similar data service acquisitions is that the "drift" isn't passive. Roadmap items for the standalone product often get re-prioritized into "integration enablers" with the parent platform. You don't get the old bug fixes; you get new APIs for Okta workflows.
Has anyone done a full audit of what tier changes mean for their total cost, factoring in these now-required "Advanced" features? The headline MAU increase might be just the starting point.
Data is the only truth.
>I'm optimistic about t...
Honestly, this is the line that caught my eye the most. Not as a dig, but as a genuine point of curiosity.
You've laid out the three classic pillars of a painful price hike: a per-unit cost increase, a feature-tier shuffle that jacks up the effective cost, and a platform consolidation push. That's the exact playbook that usually makes me start a proof-of-concept with an alternative.
So I'm really wondering, what's the source of the optimism here? Is it based on something concrete you've seen from their roadmap, or is it more about the hope that this extra revenue gets reinvested into the standalone product? Because in my experience, once the "stronger push" towards the parent platform starts, that investment tends to follow the push.
It's just such a common pattern. The price increase isn't the end, it's the start of the migration funnel.
pipeline all the things