Just Get RID of the CREDITS!!!!

[MicahWilliamson]

I am an Esri Business Partner. I have had conversations with every one of my clients about credit usage.

Every.

Single.

One. 

In a world of ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Portal, Level 1 Users, Level 2 Users, Server Roles, WebApp Builders, Concurrent licensing On/Off/On. THERE IS ALREADY ENOUGH CONFUSION. 

Please. Please. for my sanity.   Just get rid of the credits.

Either you have access to the tool or not. Go ahead and use the Freemimum model it's fine we're used to it. 

Own that it is the Worst Idea Ever and lets move past it. downwithcredits‌

...

Please See my responses below for more clarification...

...

[Paul_Christensen]

I think my number one complaint with the credit system is transparency.

AGOL: If I am charged for my data based on size, why can I not easily see the size of each data item and how much data I am currently storing? Currently, the only way to see how much data an item takes up is to upload the item and go to its individual Overview page and even then, it is this tiny number in the bottom right.

Why can I not see my current storage statistics easily and in various ways? Individually, total, as a report, as a daily....

This seems to me like basic functionality especially when you're charging based on storage size. Also, throw in there the size of the data BEFORE it is uploaded so you can calculate credits before going through the processes of uploading the data.

GeoProcessing: Why do I need to calculate my credit usage? Tell me the size of the data and how many credits it will consume during the geoprocessing process, or before data is added via the Living Atlas, or any other opaque credit consumer. 

A user shouldn't find out they consumed credits after the process is completed, they should know before hand without having to run a whole series of calculations.

Be forthcoming with consumption and not hide it!!!

[EricEagle]

I re-stumbled on this idea today in my feed.  At the end of 2019 it's still a great idea and Esri still hasn't addressed it.

I've concluded this is basically a carnival-style money grab by Esri - change my mind.

Look at how it's laid out.  You have to buy credits in bundles - whether you use them or not.  It's like being at some of the newer fairs.  Here, this ride costs 4 tickets!  But tickets can only be bought in bundles of 20 for $20.

Oh, and tickets have no cash value so it's not like you can cash them in on the way out.  So when the vast majority of people buy the bundle of 20 and walk out with 2-3 tickets left in their pocket, that is just pure profit.  You can't use those tickets at next year's fair, just like Esri's credits expire.

If Esri did away with credits, it would be replaced by micro-transactions.  But that would dig into "pure" profit in the sense that there are no new bundles of potentially latent credits on the books.

It's not-identical-but-very-similar to the micro-transaction structure in games (2000 gems or whatever for 49.99).  It is more advantageous than placing a dollar figure on operations and then charging for that, and only that.

I have a feeling it's related to the hot-dog/bun conspiracy: 8 hot dogs in a pack, but only 6 buns in a pack, which requires you to buy 6 hot dog packs and 8 bun packs to make it all work out evenly

[davedoesgis]

In a previous position, I found it impossible to get my organization to adopt ArcGIS Online because I couldn't provide more than a guesstimate of costs. It is interesting, because they had all kinds of cloud and other online services with variable costs, but dyed in the wool IT people understood bandwidth or storage, but Esri credits were just shrouded in mystery. I showed them the price charts, but no matter. As a GISer, I rather like the pay-as-you-go model, but it is pretty opaque to IT managers and the finance folks.

[LR]

I propose tradeable loot boxes as alternative.

[WernerStangl]

I honestly think ESRI would loose a lawsuit over credits in Austria, where all online transactions have to make the costs transparent and clearly visible to the customer at the time of making the transaction. You cannot hide it in agreements. In ArcGIS online you can click, geocode 1000000 addresses and ruin yourself/your institution without even noticing you spent a cent. Or an application where people can geocode, and it becomes somehow inadvertedly popular. Students do that. Employees may do that. What would happen if challenged? I really think the credit system might count as a fraudulent business model here. It is not too much to ask for warning prompts and notifications.

[UlfBecker]

Fundamentally speaking, it is easy for an individual to manage a consumption based licensing model.  I can easily manage costs if I, as an individual, want to pay Microsoft or Intuit for access to online applications.  That becomes more difficult when you expand that to include a family.  Ever try to manage cell usage for a teenager without an unlimited data plan???

So when it comes to Esri, we first pay for access to an ArcGIS Online subscription.  Then we pay for account licenses…without a robust, transparent, integrated Account Management tool.  Then we pay for credits.  Now imagine managing that for 100 to 1000s of users/customers!

So, time for the Esri version of an unlimited data that we can afford.  That means no credits…or unlimited so that they effectively become irrelevant.

There, now I feel better.

[UlfBecker]

I struggle with the same issue.  

[Jen_Zumbado-Hannibal]

I believe the credit system should be based on:

1- Is the organization deploying GIS using ArcGIS Online? If yes...then credits are issued and a clear explanation of how many credits are used per type of transaction. 

2- If the organization has an Enterprise Deployment using Portal, then credits should be available to use for professional services to help with configuration and deployment. Why so? Because ESRI has left the small government ELA's with a very big gap when it comes to deploying their software in native environments. Yes, there is support but only from 8-5 p.m. PST/PDT. 

Besides, it's not like support helps you immediately. You have to wait for them to get back to you.

So, I my opinion there should be a support tier system where you can use up credits for immediate support when needed. 

That would be a better use of these credits for Enterprise Deployments.  

[Anonymous User]

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to add my support to an Esri unlimited credit plan. We pay Esri a ton of money already. And now we are getting the "You are currently unable to perform some actions that require credits" message.

I had an engineer coworker ask if he could export data from a web map (not possible in Map Viewer ha! Only available in Classic Map Viewer so far) a few weeks ago. I had the Extract function on the feature service - sure I said, that's what the Extract function means....Turns out he could but it would have cost $11,937! (Extract Data  - 3 layers - 99,475 records) Can you even believe that?! We almost spent that without anyone being aware it was going to cost anything.

My coworkers response - they have that function available - don't they want people to use their software? His mind was blown. He also couldn't believe that extract data was in the Classic Map Viewer but that Esri was pushing Map Viewer and didn't have parity with their old Classic Map Viewer. Welcome to Esri World, I thought.

Explaining Esri Credits is embarrassing. Esri should be embarrassed, because I am explaining them.

[PeterBump1]

Micah is right. It's the same thing as when cell phone companies charged 10 cents for every text message. it's ridiculous and outdated now.  This was posted 6 years ago and all that is changed is data files are 10 x times the size they were 6 years ago so they are getting even more money for these storage fees.  They are robbing everyone blind with this credit utilization. It is an effort to push towards the costly enterprise which worked but the enterprise has all kinds of settings and security that is a mess too. AGOL is such a great UI ,just get rid of the **bleep** credits charges per megabite so we can get so work done and make things happen. Tell Microsoft, Oracle, and Amazon to eat the cost for everyone else. We pay enough for this whole stupid internet already and now we got to pay per MB, per dataset, per news story.  Someone please end this subscription economy BS and send me ArcDesktop 10.6 hard disc. Hate the cloud, hate the credits.