1. Community edition - no direct support, maybe some enterprise features no available (like Sencha.com)
2. Hosted version - easier to PAYG with a lower price point per use (like Typekit)
3. One off purchases with updates for just 12 months. Updates then require licensing (like Sketch)
The other option is that you only got for enterprise and exclude the startup and indie developers. Enterprises tend to have no issue doing the right thing. If you're worried about smaller developers taking advantage, then you need to weigh up the long term benefits.
Just remember, if it's hard to do, it doesn't automatically make the wrong choice the right choice.
- One: the model you have right now. this is for organizations where the value outweighs the price tag.
- Two: Smaller organizations are generally also more willing to compromise on JS/asset bundling and performance. Why don't you give them: - a hosted JS solution where they just have to include a <script /> tag - An uglified script. I'd argue most JS developers can't unscramble these - you keep counters on number of requests - you disqualify (using some basic hashing method) run-ability of PDFJS Express based on the time the script was requested OR if an acknowledgement from a server fails. So say, if someone is using a cached version, the script will either not run at a certain point OR all the documents will be watermarked with "TRIAL".
This second way could also be the best way for getting people started immediately. Include a tag, see a watermark, but you are ready to go.
This seems like one of those complex-enough areas that having multiple groups and companies contribute to a common good could really pay off for everyone.
But to your points: because there is no good open source initiative that does what PDFJS Express does, commercial providers like PDFJS Express and PSPDFKit are able to build pricy SaaS offerings.
You charge the same amount to large commercial customers as you do to small startups, who are trying to save every penny. Even though I really value the technology you have built, you have not allowed us to "pay-as-we-go". I am not interested in your trial and the trials of your competitors because you don't allow me to start with a $5/month plan based on volume of usage. And so, we have resorted to writing the wrappers around PDFJS ourselves, slowly and steadily over months and years. Even though we might end up spending the same amount over 2 years by doing these things ourselves, at least we will understand the technology and own it perpetually.
Just charge us based on volume, so your revenue can align with our revenue. It will create much larger traction among small developers. If you are not targeting that audience, I understand, but I contend that most people on places like HN are that audience. Be more like Crocodoc (the company Box acquired). I really don't want us to keep reinventing the pieces here because this is not our core competency.