> If a special rate that better fits an organization's usage patterns is "charity", then any rate that is not extracting the maximum amount of money from the customer is also "charity", no?

Maybe, but that's not what happened here. It wasn't "a rate better suited to an organisation's usage patterns", it was, more precisely "A heavily/1% reduced rate."

No reasonable person can have the expectation that a discount of $195k on a $200k bill is going to continue forever!

At this discount, it really is charity.

No one is ever going to pay per-seat for tens of thousands of teenage volunteers. If you're an unusual customer (nonprofit, with lots of volunteers and program people in the slack) you might end up with a long term special deal recognizing those circumstances (charging you for employees but not others).

The biggest issue is the abrupt change in policy. Slack had wanted Hack Club's patronage and had supported it. (Shoot, getting Slack visible to tens of thousands of future decision makers instead of Discord where these users all naturally congregate was a major win!)

To abruptly demand a massive immediate payment after a month's worth of mixed signals, from a small nonprofit, is messed up.

> it was, more precisely "A heavily/1% reduced rate."

It's more a tacit admission by Slack that their pricing model can't possible work for orgs that don't match a strict employer-employee model.

Nobody would agree to pay per-seat for every customer who uses a support tool, for example (which is much closer to the model this nonprofit is operating)

Saying that only the 50 workers need to pay $100 a year, and not all the program participants, is a perfectly reasonable amount of money to pay for a chat server.

It doesn't matter that an alternate method of counting would be a lot more. They paid a reasonable amount for what they got.

$200k for this service is a joke, not the 'real' price.

> Saying that only the 50 workers need to pay $100 a year, and not all the program participants, is a perfectly reasonable amount of money to pay for a chat server.

Then they should have chosen a chat server that has that as the business model.

The decision maker didn't. They chose a product that did not offer that option, then negotiated the $200k down to $5k.

Slack was obviously unsuitable for them because Slack does not offer what they wanted (free for non-employees), but the decision maker blundered on. And now they want sympathy.

> Then they should have chosen a chat server that has that as the business model.

> The decision maker didn't. They chose a product that did not offer that option, then negotiated the $200k down to $5k.

And in doing so Slack added that business model. And seemed happy about it.

> Slack does not offer what they wanted

They offered it to them.

> And now they want sympathy.

They deserve plenty of sympathy for Slack not giving them any reasonable warning as they torpedoed the deal. And it's not like they were draining Slack's resources or doing anything that made this an emergency.

Yes, that is correct.