The Developer Edition (formerly Community Edition) is - with regards to user functions and features - identical to the Free plan on the Cloud platform.
The Developer Edition has no technical limits in terms of users, storage, rows, … , has almost all user-oriented features of the Enterprise Edition, and it comes free of charge. Only a handful of advanced permissions are not included in Developer. We hope that the Developer Edition is still a very attractive proposition.
The Enterprise Edition ships with the complete features set including view sharing, row locking, column permissions and custom sharing permissions (referred to as advanced permissions above). It is not free of charge though.
You can upgrade from SeaTable DE to EE. We’ll soon provide upgrade instructions in the manual.
All advanced permissions (including custom sharing permission, row locking, column permissions and view sharing) will be available beginning with our Plus plan (7€ per month/user). Custom sharing permissions, togehter with the other advanced permission, are of course also included in the more expensive Enterprise plan. (You mention a Pro edition, which we don’t have. So I was a bit more wordy.)
Sorry for not making this more clear on the website. Our webmasters are working hard to change the corresponding pricing and features page.
Yes I mentioned Pro because that’s how it reads on our self-hosted version 1.5
7 Euros a month would be OK for users with more than just read access, but this is unlikely to be considered if we need to cover 1000 staff (950 with read).
I was looking at sharing a custom view anonymously in light of the custom view sharing permissions discussions but it seems you cannot anonymously share a specific view?
I have to come back to this once more. Can you please specify more in detail which kind of permissions will be available in the upcoming 1.6 self hosted developer edition. Will there be no permission settings at all anymore? What will happen to the permissions that were already set in v1.5? This is crucial for an ongoing project and if permissions have been completely stripped this would prevent us from upgrading to the latest version (which would be a bummer as especially the new linked record features were awaited eagerly). Also what is the timeframe for the enterprise edition and the pricing you have in mind for it? We are a small company in and if this goes into a per user/per month subscription model our current Covid related financial situation might not allow for that kind of investment for 100s of potential (external) users.
4.) View sharing (which is a shortcut for a very restrictive custom permission)
Hence, you will still be able to use all these functions:
Base sharing (read-only/read-write)
Invite links
External links
Website embedding of tables
The biggest restrictions of the Developer Edition originates from the absence of the custom permissions. They make it possible to collaborate on a very large data set (multiple tables, all data in one spot) with various user type and their different access levels. Without custom permissions, you have to spead the data over multiple bases if you don’t want some users to see particular data.
Thank you for the response. In light of the above, it sounds like we would need to upgrade our hosted version to Enterprise to have the custom view permissions included.
Can you point me in the direction of the costs for this? E.g. a monthly/perpetual license, user costs etc?
I don’t understand why you wouldn’t make the pricing public for everyone to see. I can’t help but feel a bit tricked here. Pulling potential customers into the product, then stripping of essential features and hide them behind an invisible pay wall when the customer is already deeply invested does have a bit of a sour taste tbh. I understand that you need to pay developers and ofc they should be paid fairly. Willing to pay a fair price and knowing the pricing structure now, I have to say that it would have been good to know from the beginning that sharing permissions would become a payed feature and what would be the costs for it so we could have made an educated decision about SeaTable upfront. Now in the middle of some projects we are kinda caged between existing bugs and missing features or an upgrade that we cannot afford because of a custom sharing permissions that you made us believe were part of the Developer Edition to begin with.
And last but not least, my personal opinion about the Enterprise Edition (self hosted) pricing structure. I seriously think you should make the pricing dependent on company size (internal user) and not the number of potential external users. It’s just not realistic for a let’s say 3-4 people operation to pay ten-thousands of dollars annually for a database solution depending on their customer’s needs to give visibility to a huge amount of their employees. It’s something that is neither predictable nor controllable on our side (or probably any other of your customers that is).
I like what you are doing with the product and your team seems very motivated and responsive to user feedback but as with so many software solutions theses days the pricing conception ignores reality beyond a corporate customer base. I don’t want to go into detail about my dislike of user/month subscription models in general here.
The first version of self-hosted enterprise edition is only available a few days ago. So the price is not available yet.
For custom sharing permission, it was included in version 1.5 developer edition a month ago because a mistake in our packaging system. Actually we are not stripping features.
If such a feature is essential to your project and you have a special case that can’t afford per user price, you can surely discuss with us via emails.
Hi Pueblo, I appreciate your frankness and your criticism. I hear you.
Let me say this as a bit of background: Custom Sharing Permissions were introduced in version 1.5. They were never meant to become part of the Free plan. They were always meant to be exclusive to the paid plans (Plus and Enterprise) and SeaTable Enterprise for self-hosting. We corrected this mistake in the following release 1.6.
Talking about SeaTable EE: We are not trying to keep users in the dark about its price. We just haven’t gotten down to publish them on the website. Please bear with us.
I understand that the removal of custom sharing permissions has put you in an awkward position. You started using them all the while expecting them to remain a feature of the Developer Edition. We are sorry for that.
Echoing Daniel: Please send me a personal message and I am sure we can find a way that is acceptable for both of us.
Hi, we were testing the free hosted and docker version since version 1.5, seatable was very close to what we need for our project.
As with 1.6 on the for us essential Custom Sharing permission option has been removed we are forced to stop this project as we need an internal and client view for tables.
The Enterprise or payed Version would be a target for us after an real longterm usage and real life testing, we are forced to change our direction and are Sorry about that…
Hi mtmail, do you know external links in SeaTable? You can use these sharing links to share data in read-only mode with your clients. The external link feature is (and remains) part of Developer Edition.
Apart from that: You can send me a personal message and let’s talk.
Hi Ralf, thank you very much for your fast response and offer to find a solution, nice turn, I will contact you soon…
E-Mail sent a minute ago, Greetings
A short Update, external links are no solution as they are related to an table including all table views, it is not possible if there is a internal view showing all columns and a view for clients which shall show specific columns only, everyone having the externl link will see all columns and all views, custom view permissions was the only working solution to achive that and collaborate with clients…
In the meanwhile we have upgraded to v1.6 DE (self-hosted). Now also the ‘share to user’ and ‘share to group’ features are not working anymore. I was under the impression that those were not part of advanced permissions by your posts earlier in this conversation!?
The share to user and share to group function are not part of the advanced permissions.
If this does not work, this is a bug. We don’t have other reports about this being a problem. So I speculate it’s a problem with your instance. Maybe as simple as a caching problem?
