The primary plan we're working to is that the software and platform is free for everyone, and we take the affiliate revenue that may be generated. So it's essentially paid for by the users and their behaviour, rather than a fixed rental cost being charged.
Though some feedback has suggested that a few entities (companies and local government) prefer the idea of paying based on usage to obtain SLAs and extra integration into existing sites, etc.
Hard to know which is the more dominant view. So far free seems to be winning, and we haven't yet had a single site say that they're not prepared to give up their affiliate revenue to cover the inherent costs. Most sites realise that they never actually profit from affiliates, Microcosm only works on this basis because of the potential economies of scale.
Yes is the simple answer.
Define free is the more complex answer.
The primary plan we're working to is that the software and platform is free for everyone, and we take the affiliate revenue that may be generated. So it's essentially paid for by the users and their behaviour, rather than a fixed rental cost being charged.
Though some feedback has suggested that a few entities (companies and local government) prefer the idea of paying based on usage to obtain SLAs and extra integration into existing sites, etc.
Hard to know which is the more dominant view. So far free seems to be winning, and we haven't yet had a single site say that they're not prepared to give up their affiliate revenue to cover the inherent costs. Most sites realise that they never actually profit from affiliates, Microcosm only works on this basis because of the potential economies of scale.