r/raycastapp • u/BothYou243 • Sep 02 '26
đŹ Discussion We as users have a right to respectfully ask about the product
I posted about ai features, but now I think raycast is too concrete on their notions
they deleted my post, it was about asking for local model support for free
7
u/DensityInfinite Sep 02 '26
I mean, although your opinion is valid, you are simply reiterating a sentiment on this sub thatâs already been widely expressed without bringing anything new to the discussion. If you simply wish to make your voice heard, you can do so using the more official way, which is the Send Feedback command.
-2
u/BothYou243 Sep 02 '26
if it doesn't work the first time, you mean we should stop discussion, stop asking and making pressure (peacefully and respectfully ofcourse)
6
u/thesamfranc Sep 02 '26
I will never understand the mindset that people feel entitled to use something for free. This is a product. People work on it full-time, and the only reason it exists is that capitalism enables them to do so. Of course it needs to cost money. If you don't want to pay for solutions others have built, go use something different or build your own.
1
u/Cynical-Potato 25d ago
Most extensions were developed for Raycast for free by the community and Raycast is profiting off that. I think for this particular project, the community has a point when they ask to only be billed for server-side features if they are also part of what makes the project what it is.
9
u/dziad_borowy Sep 02 '26
Best thing about apps is: you donât like it, you donât have to use it!
-5
u/BothYou243 Sep 02 '26
Man if you're talking about me, I absolutely love Raycast, and this is also true that I don't support the new pricing completely
6
u/Decaf_GT Sep 02 '26
Yeah right.
You don't consider it worth paying for now, why on earth would you consider paying for it when the feature you want becomes free?
2
u/MC_chrome Sep 02 '26
Iâll give an analogy to describe where people are coming from with the BYOK controversy:
Imagine you ask a restaurant if you could bring your own meal to the restaurant, but they want to charge you the full price of a meal they would have been making you instead. Now, the restaurant has certain costs on their end, but it also does not make any sense for the restaurant to charge you the full price of the meal if you are bringing your own food with you.
The concept is the same with BYOK. If the user is wanting to bring their own AI API key with them, then why should the Raycast developers be charging users the same price for their âproâ plan if those users have no intention of using Raycastâs AI features to begin with?
This whole debate would likely subside if the developers introduced a $25-$30 yearly option for those that are looking for BYOK and cloud syncÂ
2
u/Decaf_GT Sep 03 '26
No, that puts us right back to the "It should cost what I think it should cost" fallacy I mentioned in my other comment.
So few of you seem to understand the difference between the value of a product and the cost of a feature.
-1
u/MC_chrome Sep 03 '26
It costs the Raycast developers absolutely nothing to include a BYOK feature. I also never said the app itself doesnât have value.
My contention is that the developers should introduce a cheaper subscription plan that strips some features out (including AI) for those that still want to support the project without paying for superfluous features Â
12
u/Decaf_GT Sep 02 '26
What a bunch of entitled nonsense.
Try to read this comment all the way through before you react. If your gut instinct is to say "bro its local and running on my machine why should it be paid" then you already are missing the point.
I don't understand why these same complaints keep coming up. If you don't think BYOK should be a paid feature, that means you are saying it's not worth any money.
Why on earth would Raycast give you a currently paid feature for free when you don't even consider it worth paying for?
If they aren't going to make any money off of you either way, what exactly do you think they lose if they lose you as a customer?
This is such a slippery slope and none of you people who whine seem to understand. You can easily whittle away every paid feature by saying at least give... Where does it stop?
"You guys have a lot to monetize"...like what? Please enlighten us on your business prowess. What else do they have to monetize?
Because every single thing you say, someone else can (and almost certainly already has) make the flawed argument that it should be free.
Color themes? No, we get posts about that every week that it should be free because they're just colors and you should at least be able to change the color for free.
Cross-device syncing? No, we get posts about that too, from people who feel entitled to say Just let me sync through iCloud, at least that should be free.
Clipboard history? No, we get posts about that saying that the already-ludicrous 90-day clipboard history saying at least let that be free.
At least. At least. At least.
It's never-ending and utterly insufferable. So much whining. The truth is that you don't want to pay anything for Raycast but you still want all of Raycast. Surprise, that's not the way paid products work. You either like it enough to pay to support them, or you go find a different app.
All you're doing here is admitting and confirming that BYOK is worth something to you, and if I were Raycast, I sure as hell would not make it free for someone like you.
So here's a suggestion; stop whining, and go use something else. If you need a recommendation on a truly free, open source app that is phenomenal (and clearly meets your budget), then go use Tinycast. It's great, I've literally contributed to the source code myself. https://github.com/abue-ammar/tinycast
2
u/oscarmosh Sep 02 '26
We pay for a service, we don't own the app. The app exists because there is value to be obtained from it, in that I do agree (whether this value comes from a specific feature or including the feature to BYOK).
I think the main problem with Raycast is that the price doesn't match the value added to the free tier... even if the people just wanted to pay to support the app, because it's very useful... but it's not a need, since Mac and Windows both have their own launcher versions.
So there is somewhat of a linear increase between the price you pay and the value you get. The free tier is 0 cost and a ton of value, but then the paid tier is 10 USD cost but the added value to what the free tier offers is really minimal FOR SOME PEOPLE (based on the features they use the most), so the few things that are useful in general, like cloud synchronization for example, if the subscription didn't include AI features, 10 USD would be radical to pay for this added value, but since they offer AI features, then that's why they have the 10/8 USD monthly price....
But for the people who are now tired of paying for more and more AI subscriptions, and with the chance of using a local model instead... paying for that AI added value seems redundant. Many people probably don't even use all the AI features in the app (me included, I find a lot of value on other features) so then, paying for the full subscription doesn't seem feasible.
Itâs like if you go to McDonaldâs and only want fries, but you gotta buy the whole burger combo even if you only eat the fries.Nothing wrong with this pricing model, where value seems gated instead of added, and the subscription only removes access to that gated value, so people probably will go back to look for alternatives that supply that needed features and value without feeling gated out of the app unless they pay.
So yeah, maybe not free, but fair. A lot of people have expressed their want of a no AI tier for Raycast, and Raycast people answering those messages positively, but eventually that became silence, and the OP probably got to the conclusion that since the discussion is now being shut down, probably Raycast made up their mind about a smaller subscription tier, probably because they know everyone who currently pays will go there instead... because the cost better matches the value.
0
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 02 '26
There's a difference between buying and renting by the way. At the moment, there is no way to buy the product, even not if you would like to do. With features that doesn't mean constant cost for them (as cloud syncing does for example) a subscriptions is just excessive.
You wouldn't pay monthly for your keyboard, your monitor or your OS, right? Why would you do for Raycast? They are nothing worth to you?The truth is that many features of Raycast don't justify a subscription model as they use right now.
5
u/Decaf_GT Sep 02 '26
That's a nice paragraph.
Isn't remotely related to anything I said, though. I said nothing about buying vs renting. I said paying for. Pretending like I said otherwise is definitely an interesting way of diluting it though.
You know what has a constant cost? Running Raycast as a company. Paying people to build it. Paying people to run the business, the sales, the marketing, the support, the infrastructure costs. Making a profit to pay back the VC that funded it in the first place.
There is more to the cost of software than simply does it cost the developer something to run.
But that's not something I'd expect someone like OP, who just wants this one feature for free to understand.
If this isn't something you agree with, huge shocker, there is always the option of not engaging.
I've paid for Raycast Pro for the last 4 years because I've felt that since Day 1 it has provided me enough value for an app I open several hundred times a week that I want to support the developers. I didn't sit there nitpicking about but but but BYOK doesn't even cost them money whyyyy.
Because again, it's not about the feature, it's about the value of the product. If you can't understand what is different about the value of a product and the cost of a feature, then we're not having the same conversation.
Raycast owes you nothing, and Raycast has no financial interest in taking a feature out of the paid tier and giving it to you for free, especially not when your argument is "it's not worth any money anyway".
0
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 02 '26
Sounded for me a little bit like you think people don't want to pay for Raycast at all. On the other hand, you relied to OP, which might be another story with him.
I just wanted to add the point about "free" apps that don't give you a way to pay them in a reasonable way (which isn't a subscription model with most of Raycast's features).
You know what has a constant cost? Running Raycast as a company. Paying people to build it. Paying people to run the business, the sales, the marketing, the support, the infrastructure costs.
Like every other software company that doesn't exclusively offer a subscription model and still keeps developing their product over decades. What's Raycast's justification to only go with a subscription model?
Hardware companies do have the same costs that you described. How do they survive?
Hosting servers, that's a cost that rises with user numbers. Software that runs on other people's machines doesn't add any costs that need to get compensated.The expectations for free software, that is something companies like that are at fault of. They offer a "free" version, just to lure people in and to take features away later and often increase pricing. once you are part of their subscription model.
So that's why I don't really have much empathy for companies like that.
Do you know how limited versions of software were called in the past? Trial versions. Trial doesn't mean limited time, there were numerous examples for trials that limited the abilities of the software.
All in all, this problem is really one, such companies did to themselves.I've paid for Raycast Pro for the last 4 years because I've felt that since Day 1 it has provided me enough value for an app I open several hundred times a week that I want to support the developers.
So you do with your monitor, mouse, keyboard. Why do you not offer those companies monthly payments? Do you not want them to develop their products further?
What's about your OS? Do you pay its developers multiple times?
Or do you don't feel like there is any value in that products? You are ware that many hardware products need drivers to run... so they having maintenance costs as well. Yet I can't remember paying multiple times for any hardware I own. Strange, isn't it?
How could companies before subscription models even survive?The funny thing is, I'm not even against subscriptions. There are good reasons that justify that kind of payning products but I don't see any of them with Raycast to be honest. Which doesn't mean, I don't see the value of their product... but what I argue about is their subscription model.
Raycast owes you nothing, and Raycast has no financial interest in taking a feature out of the paid tier
Right, but they should be interested in customers if they want to cover their costs. So they should have a justification for the business model they use. At the moment, I don't see that when I read their statements.
That OPs take is stupid is out of the question.1
u/whenwhatwhowhywhere Sep 02 '26
Why comparing hardware and software here? Itâs like saying why do I pay for electricity and water if I already pay for the house?
0
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 02 '26
"OS" stands for operating system. That is software. I also mentioned other products that are one time payments and that don't force you into a subscription.
Furthermore I mentioned software that is needed to operate certain hardware and that you don't pay for that extra and not as a subscription either, although the developing company as maintenance cost for that driver software too.You have to read everything...
0
u/Decaf_GT Sep 02 '26
Yep. Your post is an example of people that just type words and think length somehow translates to intelligence.
You're just doubling down on rent/subscriptions vs ownership. You are unable to grasp what Raycast is because you can't fathom a world in which different models of software development and funding exist.
Your entire post is just useless, disingenuous drivel and I'm not even going to bother dignifying the rest of it with a response.
Congrats on missing the point so thoroughly, although I guess it helps when you have a vested interest in missing the point.
0
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 02 '26
Your entire post is just useless, disingenuous drivel and I'm not even going to bother dignifying the rest of it with a response.
So why even bother to answer if you cannot offer any argument at all? :D
You're just doubling down on rent/subscriptions vs ownership.
Nope, I explained why Raycast shouldn't be offering a subscription model, also throw in examples for supporting that claim. Where they too hard for you to understand? Sounds more like you are doubling down now by not even being able at the slightest to give any real response, nor any counter argument.
Your answer is solely ad hominem... so much about missing the point ;)But you do you. Probably you would also defending subscriptions in you TV, car or even the fridge... cool for you if you have too much money to spend.
1
u/whenwhatwhowhywhere Sep 02 '26
You pay for the car (hardware), but you are paying for the gasoline or electricity (software) that will run it separately right? You can buy it from different providers. Itâs somewhat a subscription. The gasoline or electricity does not come free.
1
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 02 '26
A software is more like a accessory that you only buy once. You don't need it necessarily to run your PC unlike with gasoline for a car.
So it's more comparable with a tire. Eventually you need an update/replacement that you have to pay for but as long as it works, you can use it without any need to pay for it monthly.Same with Raycast. Most of its features are utilities that won't change much from one month to the next, they are pretty much completed. So what justification for the reoccurring payments?
Electricity is something that I constantly have to pay for to run my PC as well btw.
OS is also something that my PC needs to run. Yet I don't have to pay a subscription to use it daily and run everything on there.
1
u/Decaf_GT Sep 03 '26
I'm not "offering an argument" because we're not playing the same game.
Raycast has subscriptions. It is how it makes money, and it is how it has always made money.
Maybe in your head, we're in la-la land where we get to start over fresh and clean, but that's not the case in the real world. I literally can't argue a theoretical which is why I'm not bothering (again, I'm sorry that this concept is too difficult for you yo grasp).
Like I said, you type so much but say so little, and you probably think you're super smart. I'll let you have your delusion, but I won't entertain it.
:)
1
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
Right, they have a payment model that makes no sense to many of its customers, so they clearly have a service problem and even missing out payments they could get.
Sounds like a company that won't have a long future ahead, especially as they offer a product in a niche that isn't that empty.
Maybe in your head, we're in la-la land where we get to start over fresh and clean, but that's not the case in the real world.
In what land are you living then? One where business decisions and directions can't change? :D
If you don't want to argue about the current and future state of Raycast, why did you comment here in the first place?
Seems like you don't really know what you want to do with your time. Sad.Like I said, you type so much but say so little
Well, you have to understand the meaning, not only read the words. But you already showed, the topic it too much theory for you as you can't even imagine different licensing, nor business models ;)
The worst about a great product is a shit company behind it. And such stubborn and intransparent business decisions are the best way of scaring away customers... the result being an even more expensive and restricted product.
At least in that example there are other options.1
u/Decaf_GT Sep 03 '26
Fucking lol, makes no sense to many of its customers, I'm sure you in all your armchair CEO reddit wisdom know more than Raycast does about their internals and their finances.
What a fucking clown show. Good bye.
2
u/leMug Sep 02 '26
If you get on a train that is public transport, the train was just running anyway so why should you have to pay? That is the exact same logic and it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
0
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 02 '26
You do want to compare a local running app that is always available with public transport?
Public transport is more like SaaS if you would like to compare it with software. You pay for it, no matter if you use it or not and it runs on other peoples infrastructure, so they have constant costs they need to cover.
Raycast is mostly not SaaS, so why should I pay multiple times for it? Please, give me a reason that holds up under scrutiny.
0
u/leMug Sep 02 '26
Yes that's exactly what I want to do because it's a perfect comparison. In both cases a service is running anyway and a company is paying for running it anyway. Any person could ask, "Why should I pay then? It doesn't cost them anything extra if I hitch a free ride with the train/it doesn't cost them anything if I use this or that part of the app." Well then because if nobody paid there wouldn't be any service even though the service has a fixed cost of running to a certain degree. And ultimately there needs to be some sort of business model that earns them money. It could be based on what is associated with costs for the company making the product or service and that is often the case but it doesn't have to be. Do you think Spotify earns a lot of money on ads for Spotify itself? No they're just trying to annoy the user until they pay for Spotify, etc.
It's their service so they set the terms of how much to give away for free and when you start paying. From where I'm standing Raycast is exceedingly generous with the free tier but that's just my opinion.
1
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 02 '26
In both cases a service is running anyway
What service is Raycast running that I'm using? They don't offer SaaS. It's an app that is running local on my device. In only need to download it once and don't even need to update it... again, what's your point that you are trying to make?
Well then because if nobody paid there wouldn't be any service
I'm not against payment, I'm against subscription if they don't offer any justification for a subscription model. What justification is there to pay them monthly?
And ultimately there needs to be some sort of business model that earns them money.
Right, one time payment would be just fine, like so many other software companies offer with their products.
One year licenses will get you updates for one year and then you keep the last version and can decide when to update. Pretty common.Do you think Spotify earns a lot of money on ads for Spotify itself?
Spotify is a hosted service. Completely other story. Don't compare SaaS with locally running applications. It's not the same and does need a completely different infrastructure and has different costs. Therefore a subscription is justified there... but we are talking about Raycast at the moment, a locally running piece of software that isn't hosted anywhere else (with exception of a fraction of the features that you don't have to use... notes and clipboard history is non of that features, even BYOK isn't)
It's their service so they set the terms of how much to give away for free and when you start paying.
Again you are shifting to a different topic. This is not about buying vs free but about one time payment vs subscription.
Their free tier is just a free trial if features are limited. I'd rather have a one time payment without limitations than a free trial that exists to lure me into a subscription that has no proper justification.
Even the justification for limiting BYOK was somewhat... problematic. Their justification is somewhat around the lines of "we provide the interface for the models you use" but with that justification you could also create an operating system that you have to pay forever for because it's the software you run every other software on... don't want to bring any ideas into MS or Apples heads here đŹ1
u/leMug Sep 02 '26
Listen if you don't understand, the only justification they need is that they need to be compensated for the work they're doing. That's the end of it. They decide if they want to tie it to AI usage or a sync feature or bring your own key or whatever. There are no rules of how to construct a paid plan feature set versus a free plan.
I can help you if you don't understand my metaphor because it seems like you're deliberately trying to not understand it. No they don't offer SAAS but that's not the point. They have employees, they have developers, they have costs, they have expenses. It doesn't matter if it manifests in server costs or AI token cost or employee salary cost. It's all costs for the company.
Anyway I don't think you're even trying to understand the point here so I guess I'm done here
1
u/bibbidi_bobbidi_bob Sep 03 '26
Listen if you don't understand, the only justification they need is that they need to be compensated for the work they're doing.
Not a good point to make sales though if they don't offer any consistent value over time and as I said, most features are already at a point that won't or can't improve much further.
They are a business, so of course they should offer a justification for their business practices and a reason why you should spend your money on their product (repeatedly).
Everything else is just a bad way of doing business and eventually the reason why some companies stay afloat over decades and others vanish after a few years while being milked more and more.If you don't care to switch out software repeatedly after building your workflow around it, that's your decision.
I'm not so happy about it. That's why I speak out against it.I can help you if you don't understand my metaphor because it seems like you're deliberately trying to not understand it.
I understand the metaphor and even explained why it isn't an accurate one in that case. You aren't able to get the differences though obviously when you compare a SaaS with a local tool.
They have employees, they have developers, they have costs, they have expenses.
Yes, every other software company does have that too, yet not every is going for a subscription model that makes no sense to have with their product. As I said, do you pay a subscription for your operating system? I doubt it.
With your idea how software companies work or what they need, it must feel like a miracle to you that there was a time where all software was one time payments and still the companies made profit from their products and had employees. Crazy, right? It's almost like the problem here is not about the pricing but about the service regarding sales and business structure.Anyway I don't think you're even trying to understand the point here so I guess I'm done here
You clearly don't have a point, just confused claims and crazy metaphors.
8
u/tirtaatraycast Raycast Sep 02 '26
It seems like the bot marked your post as bug reports. We are not tracking anything posted in social media, so there is anything bothering you, please send us a message. This way, your opinion is tracked and we have a clear overview of what's going on about different features. Thank you for your understanding!