I am on the pro plan but when I create a new workspace it defaults to Free why is that?
The Plans are “Per Workspace” plans. Workspace1 is a “Pro” workspace, while Workspace2 is a “Free” workspace.
Any base created within a particular Workspace operates under the rules for the plan that Workspace subscribes to.
For multiple teams, you could go the route of a new workspace for each team. That would be the most expensive route, especially if the same person is on multiple teams (and therefore in multiple Workspaces), because then you are paying for that user x # of workspaces they are in. If each team consists of an entirely new set of users, though, then it would be the same price as having all of them in the same Workspace.
You will always pay, in total
Pro Fee * (SUM(# Workspace1 users, # Workspace2 users, etc..)) even if the same user is duplicated across multiple Workspaces.
Your best bet, though, is to think of your teams as split up in terms of Bases within a single Workspace, though. You have your “Company Name” workspace, and all Bases associated with “Company Name” live in that workspace.
You have a “Team1” who need to collaborate on 2 different Bases, so you invite all the members NOT to the Workspace “Company Name”, but rather to the Bases “Team1 Base1” and “Team1 Base2”. All members of “Team1” can now see and collaborate on those two Bases.
You have another team, “Team2”, who need to collaborate on 1 Base together, but also need to collaborate with “Team1” in one of their Bases. Invite all members of “Team2” NOT to the Workspace, again, but to “Team2 Base1” and “Team1 Base2”. All members of “Team2” can now see and collaborate with each other in “Team2 Base1”, and they can also see and collaborate in “Team1 Base2” with “Team1” members. However, “Team2” cannot even see “Team1 Base1”, and “Team1” cannot even see “Team2 Base1”.
I realized halfway through writing that how horribly verbose it is, but hopefully it helps you understand what’s going on there.
Totally makes sense was just hoping that is not how it worked.
I’ll lend to the ‘horribly verbose’ above to say that, it’s not you, it’s the plan.
I have recently migrated to a pro plan, which I have been happy to do, but I have to be careful as my company is not doing a wide adoption. So, for those bases I wish to collaborate on I have a ‘free work-space’ (multiple, actually) while my ‘Pro’ work-space is reserved for bases which only I use. Counter intuitive? - Yes, especially because our ‘Pro’ plans provide some extra tools for collaboration… but, be aware that ‘Pro’ plan billing will charge you for any collaborators at the commenter or above privilege level, on bases housed in the ‘Pro’ workspace.
In other words, if you want to collaborate with other users on a base you will need to decide:
- Do you want them to make comment or above edits to the base?
- Does that base require pro features to function?
- Can you afford to pay for another user on your account to do so (if you have not already)
If the answer to all three above is ‘Yes’ you are hunky-dory! If the answer to #3 is ‘er…’ then you will be forced to choose between restricted functionality (shared base in ‘Free workspace’) and expanded user fees (shared base in ‘Pro’ workspace) and your workspaces, like mine, will probably wind up organized to reflect that among other factors.
Are there any plans to change the way this works? If you have multiple team members, it makes it impossible to share more sensitive info with only a smaller number of people (without losing pro features).
It would be nice to just go into the base and change to sharing rules for that base.
Don’t, know, but I do hope so, just as you do. There a a couple different feature requests in the #feature-requests section that touch on the need for more granular user control within a base.
Make sure to go add your support to them.
So, the billing structure is such that if I have a PRO account and collaborate with another paid PRO account, I am billed for their account - and the other person pays their PRO account so AirTable is double charging for the same function? That does not make any sense - or worse, it outrageous?!
I’m hoping what I’m going to find out is that if they upgrade to a paid account, then they are charged mutually and not me for that person as well.
HA! Yeah, I wonder! That’s quite a scheme if it’s the case…
It’s not the case - billing is not per account, it’s per workspace. As long as two people are collaborating in the same workspace, there will only ever be a charge for two people, and it will be charged to the owner of the workspace.
If the second person decides to create a whole separate Pro workspace, and then invite you as a collaborator to that workspace, then each workspace would be charged for 2 collaborators. But if there is already a shared workspace between the two people, I see absolutely no reason why you’d do that, unless you wanted to be charged twice by Airtable.
Ah, right of course… Thanks @Jeremy_Oglesby - That makes some sense but it’s just very counter intuitive for distributed collaboration.
For example: and please correct me if I’m wrong
I want to work fully collaboratively with 3 different colleagues on 2 different PRO featured bases but I don’t want to give all three of them access to both bases; so I’m forced to setup 2 separate Workspaces such that:
W1 = Me, PersonA, PersonB
W2 = Me, PersonB, PersonC.
If I’m paying the bills, which I am apparently because I setup the workspaces, I am now on the hook for 6 PRO collaborator units. Cha-ching…
Maybe that works for all of the gazillionares out there making dents in the universe, but I work in Non-Profit - this usage scheme is just a non-starter.
Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love Airtable and I’m gladly paying for PRO, I just don’t, for the moment, see it as scalable for the work I actually really want to do with it.
Not quite - you could do this all within a single workspace, since you can invite collaborators to only collaborate on a single base.
1 Pro Workspace: 4 Users
Base1: You, PersonA, PersonB
Base2: You, PersonB, PersonC
You - can see the whole workspace and all bases
PersonA - can see only Base1 in a workspace called “Shared with me” in his/her account
PersonB - can see only Base1 and Base2 in a workspace called “Shared with me” in his/her account
PersonC - can see only Base2 in a workspace called “Shared with me” in his/her account
You pay for 4 users total in your Pro Workspace.
You can invite collaborators at the Workspace level, in which case that user can see the entire workspace in his/her account. But usually as the administrator of multiple bases in a workspace, you would invite collaborators on a per-base basis.
Here’s what that “Shared with me” workspace looks like:
Licensing and Workspaces - How do you handle?
Yep. OK. Makes more sense-ish. I had forgotten we have the option to collaborate by base or workspace. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
But it is somewhat the case that if they create an account that now converts to a paid account for Airtable, I am still charged and now they are charging the new person as well. (That person may not be collaborating with anyone else but just needs the Blocks function or everything else trapped in Pro.)
Per workspace is a fairly ridiculous way to charge to me.
I was going to really try to integrate Airtable in with an educational model but cannot with good conscence with that pricing structure. I may use it in some ways but it lost all ability to harness its power when I have to personally pay for each person I collaborate with for every different workspace.
It would make much more sense to me if true collaboration was limited to read only or forms until the other person upgraded to their own Pro account. Then it should become a equal capability. You would have more people creating collaborative airtables and more accounts converting to paid Pro levels. As it is, I’m penalized by encouraging someone to collaborate and they are not spreading out their base of paid Pro accounts. Or there are thresholds of the numbers on a team but to have me take a hit of $20 per person, on top of my own pro account? Nope. That’s not collaborative. That’s prohibitive, unfortunately.