Subject: Vercel’s Attempt to Silence Critical v0 Feedback By Closing Threads WILL NOT WORK – The Conversation Continues HERE.
To the Vercel Community, and to Vercel Leadership (if you’re still pretending to listen),
It has become abundantly clear that Vercel is not interested in genuine dialogue or addressing the profound, systemic issues plaguing v0 and its disastrous new pricing model. Following the deeply unsatisfactory and dismissive statement from Max (@mleiter) of the v0 team – where he definitively stated “we will not be reverting this change” – the main “Updated v0 pricing” thread, a hub of legitimate user outrage and detailed feedback, was unceremoniously CLOSED .
Let’s call this what it is: an attempt to silence dissent, to sweep a PR nightmare under the rug, and to avoid accountability for the damage inflicted upon your user base. This is not how a company that values its community or respects its paying customers behaves. This is an act of cowardice.
But you cannot silence a community this betrayed and this financially harmed. This new thread is a testament to that. We will continue to voice our concerns, share our experiences, and demand the changes that are so desperately needed.
For those just joining, or for Vercel staff who might feign ignorance, let’s reiterate the core issues that your leadership seems determined to ignore, incorporating why Max’s “final word” was a slap in the face:
(Begin integration of the previous comprehensive message, adapted slightly for this new context):
Your official stance, Max, that Vercel “will not be reverting this change,” effectively tells a massive segment of your user base that their primary grievances are irrelevant. Your justifications are the same tired, corporate talking points we’ve already dismantled:
- The “$.08 Median Message Cost” is a Calculated Deception:
- This number is a statistical manipulation designed to obscure the truth. No one trying to accomplish actual work is experiencing this as their reality. We are being financially devastated by $1+ errors and the endless, costly retries needed to fix what your AI breaks. Stop insulting our intelligence with this PR spin.
- The Phantom “Competitors Jacking Up Prices” – Still No Names, Still No Real Comparison:
- This is a lazy deflection. Users are actively fleeing to platforms like Cursor and Windsurf because those companies aren’t making users pay through the nose for AI mistakes. Perhaps Vercel should study successful models instead of inventing strawmen.
- “Shipping Fixes to Bugs” – You Mean We’re Paying for Your Ongoing Beta Test:
- This is a baseline expectation of any software company, not a benevolent concession. Under this new model, you have offloaded the entire financial risk and cost of your product’s immaturity onto your users. We are directly funding your debugging process with our rapidly depleting credits. This is exploitative.
- The “v0-small Model” – A Dumber AI That Will Likely Make More Costly Mistakes?
- A “cheaper” but less capable model is a recipe for more errors. Since we’re still on the hook for every token of every failure, this isn’t a solution; it’s a cynical ploy that could easily exacerbate the problem. An LLM wrapper as unreliable as v0 currently is, is fundamentally unsuited for any per-token pricing model that charges for its own failures. This should be glaringly obvious.
- The Utter Farce of “Transparent, Future-Proof, Reliable”:
- Transparent? This rollout was defined by deceptive marketing and a complete lack of clarity on real-world cost implications. You’ve been opaque about your error rates and the true financial burden shifted to us.
- Reliable? The only thing reliable here is the speed at which our credits disappear when v0 inevitably malfunctions. The product is a mess.
- Future-Proof? For whom? It’s actively killing v0’s future for a vast number of users right now.
- Honestly, Max, it feels like your team was handed a script of corporate buzzwords and told to repeat them ad nauseam, like NPCs stuck on a loop, regardless of the burning wreckage all around. Perhaps it’s time to ask the “boss man,” Jared Palmer – who is conspicuously absent from these direct discussions while reportedly curating a fantasy narrative on X/Twitter – for a new vocabulary that actually reflects reality.
Vercel, are you and your leadership actually blind to the inferno in your own community spaces? Or do you genuinely view your users as an expendable resource, an ATM to be kicked when it doesn’t dispense cash fast enough?
- People are detailing how this change is destroying their projects, their budgets, and their fundamental trust in Vercel as a company.
- This isn’t just “frustration”; it’s fury. It’s users feeling robbed. And they are leaving.
This isn’t about us “not understanding your inference costs.” This is about Vercel making a conscious, deliberate decision to implement a predatory pricing model for an unstable, unreliable product, and then insulting our intelligence by calling it an “improvement.”
If Vercel cannot afford to run v0 without making its users pay for its constant, expensive fuck-ups, then have the basic business integrity to admit it. Tell us the economics are unsustainable for you under a fair-use paradigm. Perhaps then, the community that actually loved the idea of v0 could explore taking it open-source and building something worthwhile from the ashes of Vercel’s current strategy.
Our Demands Have Not Changed Just Because You Closed a Thread:
- IMMEDIATE ACTION & GENUINE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Not PR spin. A real apology from leadership and tangible financial relief (massive credit increase, cost reduction, or a pause/reversal of this model).
- RADICAL TRANSPARENCY: Real data on usage, errors, and the actual financial justifications. If you can’t afford it, say so.
- PRODUCT RELIABILITY FIRST: Stop charging premium rates for a beta-quality product.
- A FAIR AND SUSTAINABLE PRICING MODEL: One that DOES NOT CHARGE USERS FOR V0’S ERRORS. Explore predictable tiers or models that restore accessibility and value.
- ACCOUNTABILITY & DIRECT, UNFILTERED ENGAGEMENT FROM LEADERSHIP: No more hiding behind community managers. Jared Palmer and the core v0 team need to face their users directly and honestly.
Vercel’s attempt to silence this discussion by closing threads is a shameful tactic, and it will not succeed. We will continue to share our experiences, demand accountability, and warn others.
And let me be personally unequivocal: I will continue to utilize and appreciate Vercel’s open-source contributions like Next.js and the AI SDK – they are a credit to the community. However, due to this fiasco with v0 and the utter contempt Vercel has demonstrated for its paying user base, I will ensure my company never again considers a paid Vercel product. Vercel is now, and will remain, on our corporate “no-buy” list. Trust, once incinerated like this, is gone.
This conversation will continue, with or without Vercel’s blessing.
