One minor nitpick - you might want to adjust your comments and site copy to say "it will be open source" rather than "it is open source". Cheers.
I'm seeing DBs/groups from what I believe are other accounts.
Even simple stuff like asset tracking will go past the record limit and if I have to build something to dump and archive and then query both, I’d rather not bother as most systems I archive to have some UI and workflow option. So I’d rather have one mediocre system for the entire data than an awesome UI for part, and a mediocre system anyway.
The team seems smart, but I assume they have some technology architectural problems that make them not get big.
I would rather pay by data stored or I/o or something but charging the same for a user who adds 100 items per month as one who only reads or only adds one is hard to pay for.
Airtable is a great inspiration from the UI point of view but I am have a strong opinion of self-hosted. So Dwata will try best to stay self-hosted. It is open source (https://github.com/brainless/dwata) but I am surely planning to make money by selling license/support - have not reached there yet.
It was a spectacularly bad suggestion; Airtable seemed to require the same sorts of weird support columns and formulas as Excel in order to support multivariate queries. I came away thinking it was just a pretty browser-based spreadsheet toy, and not a thing useful for actual work.
I'm still baffled by the love.
(And I went on to use Pandas/Jupyter Notebooks/Python for my project.)
Suppose I'm thinking of using airtable to build something shared between all our staff. If I have 10 staff on the pro tier they can add 5000 items each.
But if I pay ten times as much for 100 staff they can only add 500 items each.
My guess is that it's more of a technical limit, and they had difficulty making it perform well for larger bases.
A great deal of the value of the Airtable comes from having multiple sheets in a single base. Put another way, the value comes from the ability to maintain relationships of data.
So those 10 or 100 staff aren't just entering individual items. They are, say, adding project information--ideas, bugs, tasks, managing the next sprint. Every additional bit of information you add to Airtable compounds the problem.
Airtable is the only data management tool I've ever seen that punishes users for storing more data.
But their "records-per-base" limit is a complete non-starter. The highest tier of service (before Enterprise) has 50k record cap, which disqualifies it for many reasonable use cases.
Apologists for Airtable hand-wave away this concern. They say Airtable has integrations with other systems and databases; that Airtable is meant for current data only; that its not meant to store complete histories; that larger databases would be too resource-consuming.
None of it is persuasive. The limit seems arbitrary and seems obviously intended to drive businesses into the Enterprise pricing.
I've even tried to contact them about it in the past, to get a larger limit. I was starting work on a non-fiction book and thought it would make a great writing support tool for gathering facts and evidence. But I never heard back.