Answered

Matterport Affiliate Billing System

I'm currently at 150 scans - half way until I reach the 300 scan limit.

I presently do not charge my clients 'hosting' as all of my 'hosting' fees are subsidized by the savings on processing.

When I do it 300 scans, I'm not sure what will happen. If I have to open a second account, then I would at least like to not have to eat the $150/mo from the 'full account'.

For those of us who believe in billing our clients for hosting, it would be nice if Matterport could help us.

Ideas:

  • Ability to move client files into their own account where we are an administrator, but they receive the bill.
  • Ability to create sub accounts with a per/scan or flat fee wherein Matterport takes a cut as the middleman.
  • Keep it simple to help people have straightforward business models that line up with other MSPs.

--

Current Schemes:

  • Many MSPs have plans wherein hosting is 'free' for six months, or a year, then there's an annual fee.
  • A $50 plan can host 100 models. Therefore, I could see Matterport offering a 'sub account' system where customers are billed $1/mo for their models -- or $3 quaterly -- or $10 annually. The MSP would receive a credit of 50% of the amount -- thus Matterport makes money by offering billing services.
  • Models that are in a sub account with independent billing do not count against our billing plan's max # of models.
  • Models that are in a sub account will live on if our main accounts are cancelled - thus if for any reason a photographer decides to retire from Matterport Scans due to a change in industry, relocation, or any life changes, they can leave their customers in good hands with Matterport.
  • Customers can upgrade their Matterport 'sub accounts' to full accounts that would allow new scans to be added. This would require that the main account holder AUTHORIZE letting it go. At that point, the converted sub account would pay the normal $50/$100/$150 fees.
9

Comments

15 comments
  • Can you help me understand your thinking when you say "I presently do not charge my clients 'hosting' as all of my 'hosting' fees are subsidized by the savings on processing."

  • Yes.

    It costs $19 to process a scan.

    A basic plan costs $49/mo and includes 3 free models per month ($57 value).

    As long as I scan 3 things per month, I'm technically not paying any hosting - just prepaying for 3 models at a discount (or overpaying $6/ea if I only did 2 scans).

    Thus, I don't charge my clients hosting because -I- am not paying for hosting due to subsidized processing fees.

    If I reached my limit of 300 hosted models on the $150/mo account and Matterport approached me about opening up a new account, then at that point, I'm potentially losing $150 for hosting.

    Hosting is only a real expense when it's a real expense. Until you hit your account limit and Matterport asks you to open up a new account, it's not a real expense. Or - if you have a very very slow month.

    In that case... Matterport should offer roll-over tour processing.

  • Purely from a business or accounting POV - i have to respectfully disagree with your position. Missed opportunity.

  • I market that there are no residual fees which is strategic against other MSPs if it comes down to pricing.

  • Im also very concerned on how my customers are going to access their scans if for what ever reason Im unable to continue hosting them on my account. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow my scans will all die along with me when it comes to renewing the Matterport annual account. I presently charge for hosting beyond a 12 month Some of my clients pay a large premium for large and complex scans and i would like for them to have the piece of mind knowing that if I go out of business, die or just decide Matterport is not for me then they have some sort of control and access to their models which in some cases are many $1000's of dollars. Matterport can you please offer a long term hosting solution.

  • Hi @Jon, we hear you loud and clear! It's going to take some time, but we have a few things in the works...

  • @Jon Totally agree, that is why in the medium to long term Matterport have to allow self hosting via a licenceable player.

  • I was excited to see this reply Scott but less excited to see the comments on the Matterport FAQ section on the Matterport website. Does this mean that Matterport has since changed its mind does not want to pursue the avenue of allowing hosting now? This is what is posted in the FAQ section -

    Can I host my Spaces locally?

    Currently we do not offer a local hosting solution for your Spaces, nor is it on our immediate roadmap. We believe that by adopting a SaaS (Software as a Service) model with a centralized cloud hosting strategy, we can offer more efficient deployment, improved support, and more frequent updates. Therefore, we feel that these benefits outweigh the advantages of a local hosting solution.

    If you feel very strongly about a local hosting solution, please contact us and we'll be happy to reassess in the future.

    https://matterport.com/frequently-asked-questions/

  • I think Matterport is spot on here. They are using Amazon AWS to host allowing a global CDN to provide the fastest speeds for your users. This creates the best, smoothest, experience. Unless you intend to ALSO use Amazon AWS or a similar CDN, it would not be advantageous to self host.

    Additionally, yes, if you self hosted (everything) - you'd not get feature rolls outs and bug fixes! Imagine the support needed when things break with new browser releases etc. Imagine the fragmentation of the platform. What Matterport is TODAY is not what Matterport will WANT people to perceive their platform as in a year.

    The only BENEFIT that I see to 'local hosting' would be if one is able to locally embed the tour wherein it still loads all files from Matterport, but the embed is done in javascript allowing an SDK to interface with the tour all from the same domain... but that's sorcery.

  • Hi @Jon,

    What you saw in the FAQ is correct, at least for the time being. Things are changing fast and one of the bigger reasons we don't currently allow self hosting is the inability to update Showcase in order to reflect all the new features.

    If your clients would like a downloaded copy, they can download the Space to the 3D Showcase for iOS app for now. That would give them anytime access and if they back up the iPad, the Space data would be backed up too.

    I know that's not ideal and I apologize for any inconvenience.

    - Amir

  • The only issue with this is that Matterport has invested heavily in providing us with lightning fast connection speeds utilizing Amazon AWS. The amount of work put into optimizing tour loading is a hallmark of what makes Matterport so great! A self hosted tour would be inferior, thus not favorable as an option.

  • Im with you Chris - Im also perfectly happy with the hosting remaining on the hugely invested Amazon AWS service under Matterport's careful management. But what would make me, and certainly my customers happier is if my clients can get take control over their own individual model hosting rather than rely on my subscription . Its hardly fair to expect a client to buy his own 100 model minimum annual subscription when instead they could can pay a nominal annual fee for their own individual model subscription it would give so many of my long term hosting clients piece of mind. I can't promise anyone that I will still be a subscriber to this business model in 2-3 years but I know my clients will be expecting hosting beyond that period. Its a tough area for me when it comes to selling in the service to long term clients such as luxury rentals and museums etc.

  • Totally agree!

  • Did I not read somewhere that if you cease to have an account your models still remain visible or did I dream that?

  • Sorry, David, but that sounds like a glorious dream :) That would be great, but the only problem with free hosting is the number of ads one has to navigate through before they get to the content they really want.

Please sign in to leave a comment.