[zareith]

The project looks cool, but I'd strongly recommend against the per-task pricing.

This makes budgeting & forecasting difficult to impossible for a lot of teams, and creates wrong incentives. It is better to have a per user pricing, and then allow them to use as much as they want.

[steelaz]

Threw me off at first as well. I was thinking of tasks per month. But this seems to be just pay as you go top-ups. Makes sense from a freelancer perspective. If I have work, I top-up my account. If there is none, I don't feel pressure like from all the other monthly subscriptions.

[internet101010]

Pay as you go is better for all but the heaviest of users. The low cost per task and topping up a balance make it one less thing to think about, one less monthly fee, and will almost certainly result in cheaper cost per month.

It's the same reason why I use api keys from all of the LLM providers rather than pay monthly fees to any one individual company. It's $5-10/mo vs. ~$80/mo.

[rapind]

I love this pricing model as a potential customer. The cost is so little that it wouldn't be a deterrent. This is way better than another subscription.

There's a lot of problems trying to run a business with this model though IMO (forecasting, recurring expenses, etc.). I hope it works out for them though!

[mbesto]

I like the pricing - I think its interesting. But I think the author should just give the option to do one or the other. Unlimited at $10/month or per task.

[zareith]

Yes, that would make it ideal.

[stronglikedan]

Seems like they are targeting the side of the market where per user pricing doesn't work.