In the world of modern software, few things catch teams off guard like the first real invoice from their observability platform.
It usually starts with a clean offer: “$0.10 per GB,” “$15 per host,” “$0.02 per trace.” The numbers are small. They look manageable. You do the mental math, check your usage, and everything seems well within range. But fast-forward a few weeks, when dashboards are built, logs ingested, and more services added and the bill doesn’t match that simple first impression.
Those can be fair and useful when pricing is consistent and predictable. The issue here is modular pricing that fragments the product into dozens of separately billed components, each cheap on its own, but together creating a cost structure that’s extremely difficult to anticipate.
Software Sticker shock!! Unfortunately, it’s not a niche edge case - it’s happening to a lot of teams, and they’re speaking up.
The Psychology Behind Sticker Shock
Sticker shock is more than surprise. It’s a breach of expectation and it’s deeply psychological.
-
Anchoring: We fixate on the first number we see. If a homepage says “$15 per host,” we build an internal pricing model around that. Everything else is compared to that initial anchor, even if that anchor turns out to be the smallest part of the total cost.
-
Framing effects: Pricing is often framed in units that sound negligible - cents per event, per GB, per custom metric. But usage in observability stacks is exponential by nature. A simple logging setup can generate millions of events per day. Suddenly, a harmless-looking $0.01 turns into thousands of dollars per month.
-
Loss aversion: When the final bill overshoots your expectations, it doesn’t just feel expensive, it feels like something was taken from you. A financial surprise in a core infrastructure tool can lead to mistrust, hesitancy to expand usage, or even churn.
-
Cognitive overload: Teams shouldn’t have to forecast 12 variables to estimate a monthly bill. But that’s exactly what modular pricing forces them to do. How many logs? How many users? How many traces, custom metrics, containers, dashboards?
If you’ve ever tried to run those calculations in a spreadsheet before a procurement meeting, you already know how far this is from transparent pricing.
This pricing pattern is common in the observability space. A platform breaks down every dimension of its offering into separately billed line items. You pay per host, per trace, per GB of logs, per synthetic monitor, per dashboard, per user seat, and in some cases, per alert rule or widget.
In theory, this allows for precision. In practice, it creates unpredictability. What starts as an affordable monitoring setup becomes expensive the moment you start using it comprehensively.
And this isn’t speculation. It’s well-documented in public reviews:
These aren’t isolated complaints. They reflect a structural issue in how pricing is designed and communicated.
What Gets Lost: Consumer Confidence and Adoption
The impact of sticker shock isn’t just financial. It affects behavior.
Teams start turning off features. They log less data. They avoid instrumenting certain services. Engineers hesitate to explore or expand usage because of fear of unpredictable costs. But most importantly, these practices “ruin” the market for the rest of us that are not playing along.
Once that fear sets in, the relationship with the vendor becomes transactional. Trust erodes. Expansion slows. Conversations with procurement turn defensive.
A Different Approach: One Metric, All-In
At Instana, we’ve made a conscious choice to avoid this path.
We price everything with a single, unified metric: Managed Virtual Servers (MVS). It doesn’t matter how many hosts, dashboards, users, or metrics you have. All features are included. Very few add-ons. Reasonable fair use policy. No hidden charges.
From Release 1 to Release 300, this has always been the way. We’ve stuck to one simple pricing model because we believe predictability is more valuable than clever packaging.
It’s not the most “marketable” model. In a side-by-side comparison of pricing pages, we might not look cheaper at first glance. But when teams deploy us in real-world scenarios and compare their actual costs, we consistently come out as the most affordable option.
More importantly, we give teams predictability. You know what you’re spending. You know what’s included. And you can grow your observability footprint without having to do financial gymnastics.
Observability should be a multiplier, not a constraint. It should help teams move faster, not make them cautious. And that only works when pricing aligns with usage in a way that’s simple, transparent and sustainable.
A different pricing philosophy
Modular pricing with per-unit billing may look flexible on paper, but in practice, it introduces risk, opacity, and friction. When teams can’t predict what a month of normal usage will cost, that’s not flexibility, it’s volatility.
The sticker shock that results isn’t an accident. It’s a byproduct of systems designed to look cheap upfront and monetize later through complexity.
We believe there’s a better way. One metric. One price. Full clarity. This isn’t just a marketing gimmick, It’s our product philosophy.
#Competitive
#Education
#General
#Ideas