I don’t understand what the point is in trying to strictly control how exactly users use their subscription.
You can simply provide tariff plans with different amounts of functions and different prices - let everyone choose what suits them, buy it, and use it as they need.
The client will always choose not what is imposed on them, but what is the best value for money.
The Maker plan was used because it is functional and inexpensive. The Pro plan is not used because it is overly functional and overly expensive.
To successfully sell a product, you need to create a good price-quality ratio.
And attempts to limit clients in using the product are pointless, and will never lead to the result that is expected.
How can a paid subscription that is paid for continuously, every month, become unprofitable in the long run?
I don’t get it…
Every account costs money to service, because it needs processor resources, memory, storage, backup storage, power, bandwidth provision, datacentre fees etc.
In addition, processing payments via the various channels also costs money, so with a fairly low-cost subscription the profit margin will be surprisingly low.
Factor-in the staff resources needed to manage the servers, payment processing and troubleshooting etc and the margin shrinks even more.
If you accept that some people will be able to pay for a Pro subscription, but decide that the Maker subscription is adequate for their needs, then having the Maker option deprives Blynk of a few potential Pro sales.
You say “simply”, but in reality it’s not actually that simple.
The logic behind a system which allows some users to see different sets of widgets, difference numbers of templates, devices etc based on the shopping list of options they’ve selected is far more complex than simply having a very small number of fixed subscription types.
Optimising the system so that it checks these permissions in real time for every users account needs more complex code, more server-side resources, more complex billing algorithms etc.
And, as I said earlier, charging small amounts of money for extra features makes the payment channel fees potentially far higher.
Look at how many times Blynk has optimised (and generally reduced the features available for each subscription type) since Blynk IoT was launched and you’ll see that it’s all quite a fine balance from their point of view.
Pete.
Hi @PeteKnight , thanks for all the effort to clarify most things, I truly appreciate the discurs.
Also, having Blynk used in sailing club/marina is indeed a commercial application which I dont dispute.
What my gripe is, is that by shutting down Maker 10 and Maker 20 plans there is a HUGE difference between free and PRO plans or in other words a very costly entry fee.
I really wouldn’t like to have to change the platform but also I cant justify paying 1200e a year for a PRO plan just because I need 1-3 additional devices, few more templates and messages.
What Im trying to say is that PRO is just an overkill even for some businesses.
Whether its pay-per-use model or introduction of some “middle ground” plan I don’t care as long as first step on the ladder is not immediately 99$ 
Cheers and all the best 
I understand and agree with this.
Blynk has the right to decide for themselves what strategy to follow. And we have the right to decide what to buy.
1 Like
Whatever the scope of a given plan might be, people are going to use the plan that fits their needs. Now that maker is gone, people are going to look again and I would doubt that a lot of people will switch to an overkill PRO plan at the current price, most will start looking for alternatives.
I simply can’t image killing the maker plan will bring substantial new revenue to the PRO plan. Killing the maker plan only makes sense if the cost for Blynk of a maker subscription is higher than the revenue it generates.
I agree, and I didn’t say it would.
I was talking about all of the hidden costs of providing the Maker plan, and one of those costs is that it might deprive Blynk of a few Pro sales.
No mention of “substantial” because clearly killing the Maker plan won’t have that effect.
It will prevent some people using the Maker subscription for semi-commercial purposes, and a percentage of those may conceivably choose the Pro subscription instead.
It will certainly drive makers away from Blynk and towards the opposition, but presumably Blynk are okay with that because the Maker subscription is probably not very profitable and has a high risk of abuse by semi-commercial users.
Pete.
hmm, well it takes some courage for Blynk to risk their reputation for a possible marginal gain 