PSA: New business model

News & Updates
1

Hey everyone,

PSA: On February 2nd, we’re launching Speckle’s new plans, and I wanted to share a bit of context on what’s changing and why I believe it will reduce friction and make it easier to get the right data into the right hands.

Speckle has evolved a lot in the last (almost) six years. What started as a way to move geometry between tools has slowly, and sometimes painfully, turned into something much bigger: a shared data layer that teams rely on to coordinate work, reason about design, automate checks, and ultimately make better decisions.

With the launch of Speckle Intelligence and our ACC integration, that shift is no longer theoretical. Speckle is being used by more teams, in more ways, across more projects than our original business model ever really anticipated.

As that usage grew, it became clear that some of the assumptions baked into our older plans no longer reflected how Speckle is actually used day to day. In particular, the idea of counting “seats” didn’t align with how real projects play out. Data needs to flow easily to and from project managers, coordinators, construction teams, and clients. Sometimes briefly, sometimes at scale. For Speckle to do what it’s meant to do, that data needs to move freely and be easy to access.

Charging per user in that context creates friction in exactly the wrong places. It also leads to some very creative license gymnastics that, while impressive, probably shouldn’t be necessary. More importantly, it forces trade-offs elsewhere, on clarity, predictability, and reliability. So we’re moving away from that.

We’re introducing new plans based on projects and usage, not on how many people you allow to look at the data.

This shift is about making sure Speckle can continue to support the kinds of workflows many of you are already building: analytics, automation, deeper integrations, and reliable performance as projects and teams scale without having to compromise on how fast or how responsibly we can keep improving the platform.

Whether you’re on a paid plan or working in a free workspace, you’ve probably notices I’ve already reached out to you by email with the relevant details. You can also find a preview of the new plans and an extensive FAQ on the new Speckle Plans demo page. We’ve tried to anticipate as many questions as possible, but if we missed something, let this thread be the start of that conversation.

I know changes like this can be uncomfortable, and they’ll land differently depending on how you use Speckle today. That’s why we’re approaching the transition deliberately: giving everyone time, providing access to Enterprise features during the transition, and making sure there are real humans (@jonathon and @nikos, to name a few) available to help you figure out what makes sense for your team.

And it’s also why Speckle remains open source: If running your own infrastructure is the right answer for you, that option isn’t going anywhere, ever! All core platform components are there for you - server, connectors, conversion, viewer and more.

My north star hasn’t changed: give you control over your IP, reduce friction in collaboration, and help you actually use the information you already produce and own. These plan changes are about aligning Speckle with how it’s used in the real world, so we can keep building responsibly, transparently, and for the long term.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback these changes are actually based on, and for holding us to a high standard, especially when the conversations are hard.

8 Likes
2

You definitely hit the nail on the head with this causing discomfort and friction. This increases the cost 1000% for starter users… Its an increase from $9 a month to $99.

The starter licensing itself was pretty terrible in my opinion. On my end I’ve been billed 3 times last year for the same license. I have no contributors/editors in my workspace or projects aside from myself yet I was billed for starter license x3. (twice on the same day).

Speckle went from free, to reasonable starter licenses, to exceeding the cost of an ACC full collaboration access seat in a single year. Giving honest feedback here increasing price 10 fold while restricting users forcing them to enterprise environment (at yet an even greater cost) is a significant enough change that will result in seeking other alternatives. While this may better serve certain environments my personal use case hasn’t changed in that timespan and it does not justify the cost.

3 Likes
3

Hi Dingus, good reply. We’re basically bundling 10 starter seat licenses in one package and adding features to bat, so the math is a little bit different.

This is our first move in moving away form seat licensing and based on customer feedback we’ve gotten throughout the last year.

If $1000/year is not something you or your company can afford - and I perfectly understand that, I actually have been there - I want to stress out that we’re not forcing anyone anywhere: self hosting is always an option, but you’ll find that that will also amount to infra costs of $50-75/month on a cloud like Digital Ocean (i’d stay away from complex beasts like AWS/Azure/GCP) for a “lite” server, so you won’t be too far off.

We have a bunch of guides to that effect: Deployment Options - Speckle Docs

Regarding the billing confusion in the past year, do reach out to the team at billing [at] speckle [dot] systems if you haven’t already.

1 Like
4

Its not a matter of affordability, its a matter of justification and ROI.

Perhaps some clarity is order on your first statement. Is it a true statement to say its akin to bundling 10 start licenses? Meaning you are paying for 10 contributers/editors whom can manage 5 projects each with their own 5 model limit with unlimited access downstream? That would be 250 models infinitely shareable?

I’m not confident the statement about this being a 10 starter seat license bundle is accurate.

If that was indeed the case then the cost in my opinion is justifiable but only in situations where you are filling those seats. For others you would limited to paying for unused seats.

For many teams, Speckle isn’t being used primarily for authoring, automation, or analytics but rather as a lightweight web viewer and coordination layer to get models in front of field teams, PMs, and stakeholders who just need to review, comment, and reference. In that context, moving from an effectively “unlimited viewers” model to project/usage based pricing is a tough pill to swallow.

The open-source commitment and the direction toward intelligence and deeper integrations are real strengths, but I think there’s still a gap for teams who just want Speckle as a coordination surface, not a data platform they’re actively building on. Right now, those users feel like collateral damage of a pricing model optimized for power users.

ACC may be heavier, slower, and more opinionated but it’s predictable. One license unlocks publishing and unlimited downstream viewers. When Speckle costs more than that for less coordination functionality (issues, markups, approvals, permissions), it’s hard to justify, even if the underlying data model is better.

Not saying the change is wrong just that the use case that helped Speckle win a lot of adoption is the one that is most penalized by it.

4 Likes
6

I can’t speak to how others use Speckle, but I will say that this is how we are using it within our operation.

While the automation and analytics aspects of the platform are interesting, we are using Speckle almost exclusively as a platform for hosting, viewing, and sharing models. We are quite unlikely to use the new Intelligence features at all.

With the new model (given our use case), it feels like we are paying more for more restricted functionality (project & version limitations) and paying for things we won’t use (seats, Intelligence, automations, etc.).

3 Likes
7

both @Ding_Gus_Con and @Domenic.G are making great points. I also am of the belief that this change will hurt Speckle more than help the growth.

I, for one, am the only user within the company and do/will not have 10 team members that could use it, and most probably will not be able to justify the quadrupling cost to my company. Even though we use it for more than viewing and sharing downstream.

Just my 2 cents’ worth.

2 Likes
8

Hi,

I have sent an email about this, but let’s try here as well
I have been using speckle mainly for model viewing in Power BI. and was paying for it out of pocket.
I am trying to convince my manager to purchase a speckle team plan, and need to understand few points

A. Regarding the new Speckle team plan, I understand that it supports up to 10 users. Does this refer specifically to users who can upload and edit models? Am I correct in understanding that the number of viewers accessing the Power BI reports or the Speckle dashboard remains unlimited?

B. If the 10 users are editor seats, are these seats floating/flexible? In other words, can they be reassigned between users as needed?

C. Are there any guarantees or indications that pricing and plan structures will remain stable in the near future?

Thanks in advance

Mohamed