Tldraw SDK 4.0
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
tldraw.devTechstory
controversialmixed
Debate
80/100
Open-SourceLicensingSoftware Development
Key topics
Open-Source
Licensing
Software Development
Tldraw SDK 4.0 introduces a new licensing model with a $6,000 annual fee for commercial use, sparking debate among developers about the pricing strategy and its implications for open-source projects.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
29m
Peak period
28
0-3h
Avg / period
5.6
Comment distribution50 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 50 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 18, 2025 at 3:21 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 18, 2025 at 3:50 PM EDT
29m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
28 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 20, 2025 at 12:41 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45293839Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 4:53:34 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
I like tldraw as a software but I used to see tldraw having multiple pages in the same canvas and that had helped me tremendously in the past which It seems is now a sign up feature...
I hope excalidraw can catch up too. The more options and the more truly foss options, the better...
Excalidraw was already really established when I started tldraw, yeah. I was a contributor (the app uses my ink library perfect-freehand!) and still love the project. Excalidraw has done really well with their SaaS app Excalidraw+. I still think the bigger long term need / opportunity is for an SDK product, given that whiteboarding is becoming more of a commodity feature, like kanban boards or maps.
Two of the starter kits we released today are more flowcharty. It’s been possible to make this kind of thing with tldraw for about 18 months, since we made our bindings API, and a few teams have built graph UIs on tldraw already, but I wouldn’t say it’s an easy path. Hopefully these starter kits will make it easier to uh start.
IMO A 100-day trial is too short to try it.
I would more likely to use tldraw if it had a monthly fee even at $100-$300/mo.
But $6K a year and getting only community support is a huge risk for some SMEs.
I expect we’ll do extended trial licenses for teams that are serious but just getting started, or are pre-revenue pre-funding; and there’s a hobby license for non-commercial projects. Pricing… never ends.
There is a big difference between how startups buy and how enterprises buy, but it seems you’re treating them as equal in everything except budget.
Anyway, easy for me to say that, I have no stake. You know your customers… but as sales-aware observer, it seems very counterintuitive to make low budget people go through a sales process.
When I was doing pricing discovery and asking early adopters what they would pay for tldraw, almost all the teams I talked to either said "nothing because we don't have any money yet" or a number between $5,000 and $10,000, with a handful of outliers. In the end, my solution was just to put a price on the thing and then find ways to provide for everyone else, including PRPF commercial teams. In 3.x our solution was a watermark, which caused other problems for us; but this discussion made it pretty clear to me that we need to have a better answer for these teams in 4.x.
That said, we've at least got the startup sales _process_ as close to self-serve as we can. Someone still needs to validate the size of the company and send a Stripe link, but 20% of startup licensees were delivered in under 24 hours and more than half are done in under a week.
I think that your blindspot is that you are defining your pricing based on conversations with the subset of customers that are willing to enter into a sales process. Engineers being sales-averse has become a meme but it is rooted in truth: many engineers do not want to be sold to. And many product-defining choices are being made by engineers. The success of the bottom-up sales strategy for selling software shows that there is a lot of money to be made by making it easy for engineers to buy.
(My startup spends more than $6k/year on a number of valuable services but I would not have selected the services initially if they required a sales conversation and upfront commitment. Even today, knowing I will spend more than $6k on these services in the next 12 months, as I have in the last 12, I would not commit to paying them $6k today. From my own experience, I'd estimate that that 75% of B2B software subscriptions are monthly, even when an annual plan (with an aggressive discount) is available.)
Tldraw is the best product in the space by far, and an obvious choice for any company building a product that needs a canvas, but your current pricing is a big gift to Excalidraw (and others). Every engineer is going to be thinking about forking over $6k in cash before they decide to run `npm install tldraw`. And unless tldraw is a choice being dictated to them, $6k is going to seem like a very big number they are going to have to justify. During my time as an engineer-employee, I had no defined budget: asking for $6k to be spent on something upfront would be very daunting (even compared to asking for a subscription that would amount to $6k/year).
Tldraw is the canvas SDK but that could change quickly if Excalidraw capitalize on your pricing. If Excalidraw is free to use, and Tldraw is $6k upfront, Tldraw will become the product people try after being disappointed by Excalidraw and convince themselves that Tldraw's superiority is worth an additional $6k spend. You go from being the default to the expensive alternative. Being the default is a golden goose, being an expensive alternative is an uphill battle.
As engineers we feel that because we can, we should, and that's why we want to validate numbers, we want a system that does everything and requires zero trust. And I believe that is likely influencing your thinking about self-serve. Yes, some customers will lie when going through self-serve to keep their bill low, but once Tldraw is integrated into their product, you have leverage to get them paying the right amount. Schedule an account review for every self-serve customer after 6 months. If they look like they might be underpaying, reach out, and get them paying the right amount. When the alternative is ripping out Tldraw, paying thousands of dollars more per year is an obvious choice to make.
If I were commercializing Tldraw, I would be selling it self-serve at $100 per month per developer. I would do away with the trial, and emphasize that the open-source version is free to use in development. I would expect customers to purchase once they are ready to go live in production. I would let customers declare their team size when purchasing. Every 6 months I would review subscriptions, reaching out if the numbers look off.
I would probably drop the 10 team size limit too, and instead make the business subscription more valuable to larger teams. If I have a team of 10 developers working on a product containing Tldraw then I am spending millions of dollars per year on their time. If I can save 1% of that time by having access to support from Tldraw's team, my team can spend their time on the parts of the product that matter. An extra $150 per month per developer ($250/month/developer) would be an obvious choice if it could save each developer a couple of hours per month.
Your product is fantastic and worth far more than $6k per year but getting $6k per year for it requires finesse, not just a decision that $6k is the right number. Anyway, I am just a person writing 500 words for free on HN so caveat emptor.
It's a great product - charge for it for sure - you need to be comercially viable. BUT, imho it's madness to make it so difficult to buy and have opaque pricing. It's a path to stagnant reliance on a handful of big customers while somebody innovates from under you and takes the market. Comfortable for a while, and then no business.
But the bigger issue is there's no clarity of what this will cost if the startup works out and grows. So you spend a bunch of dev time building something that uses TLdraw and then its completely unknown if you can keep using it in the future as the cost could be $1 or $1 billion.
Any startup would be crazy to depend on a service with unknown pricing.
Sure you can email them and get the pitch by a salesperson, and use a bunch of time to get some long legal agreement with pricing in it somewhere, but that's what you do for massive custom-built enterprise tools. Not for on SDK in your stack. I don't think the opaque pricing model is common or viable for this kind of SDK. Imagine if payments providers or authorization providers or hosting all just had blank pricing and a "talk to us" button.
- for hobby projects: at what moment do you go from hobby to commercial license (and need $6k in cash)?
- for new businesses: you now either have a 90-day window to find product-market fit, or assume you'll have to burn $6k in the event of failure?
I greatly appreciate tldraw and think the licensing changes are completely reasonable. The team is highly responsive on Discord, and looking forward to the company nailing down the nuances of pricing out this specific business model.
Pricing is difficult as it is, open source pricing double so, open source canvas library pricing has got to be one helluva hard problem to solve.
I would like to see more improvements to the sync portion, specifically more granular authorization controls.
About three years ago, we integrated tldraw into BigBlueButton as our whiteboard. It’s been an excellent upgrade over our old, simple whiteboard — tldraw is a fantastic project.
I'm also the CEO of Blindside Networks, the commercial company behind BigBlueButton. We have growing by the traditional open source business model: we offer hosting, engineering services for acceleration of features, and support contracts.
I understand the motive behind tldraw's change of license. Open source projects often get asked two contradictory questions: 1. Can I use your work for free? 2. Can you guarantee that you’ll be around in 5 years?
You can’t answer (1) without a solid plan for (2). Licensing changes are one way projects try to answer both of these questions.
We are no stranger to license changes, we recently rewrote the entire back-end of BigBlueButton and moved away from mongoDB to PostgreSQL + Hasura.
For us, moving to tldraw 4.0 would mean:
- As Blindside (the company): buying a commercial license — that’s straightforward as we are also a commercial company. - As BigBlueButton (the open source project): it would require every organization running BigBlueButton to obtain its own license key to tldraw.
There are pros and cons here. We want a world-class whiteboard in tldraw based on a sustainable open source project, but we also want to keep BigBlueButton’s community deployment model simple.
Curious how others in the HN community have handled integrating source-available components into open source projects. How do you balance sustainability with accessibility?
I know this is not relevant to the thread, but could I pick your brain on this model? I'm looking at launching a product soon and I've been struggling with how I might monetize it in a sane manner that works for customers and for the business.
At this point tldraw v4 seems to offers no significant improvements over v3, which does everything I want from a whiteboard. I think most people who can live with the previous watermark will just stick with v3 permanently.
As far as working with source available components, suggestion one is to look for others int he community that you can cooperate with to maintain a fork, and option two, if you really can't get the community to support a fork, is to make it a plugin/optional component, preferably with an API so that other solutions can be integrated as options, or at least a fallback to the old version that was open source.
"The OSS* Playbook: Turning Free Users into Engineers and back into Paying Users"
This now sounds like the best way to scale adoption heading into 2026.
Sidenote: Payload spending years setting themselves up for a Vercel acquisition only to be acquired by Figma is still my surprise OSS of the year.
If you charge by MAU, that’s the Unity licensing debacle all over again. If you charge by seat actively coding with tldraw - that might just be one seat at a massive funded company. If you offer monthly plans, that’s more BD/account management overhead to prevent churn.
But how do you keep the product usable by a broad community of hobbyists who still may want to commercialize to cover their costs and risks? Not everything can be bring-your-own-token, but if you’re merchant of record, you’re doing so as a commercial entity.
And on the monthly point - “hey boss I made a thing but you’ll have to allocate $6k upfront” is very different from “hey boss I made a thing and we can pay monthly until we validate the ROI.” (And someone might be wearing both hats!)
At minimum, a well-fleshed-out “pre-funding sub-X-revenue startup” program would go a long way towards continuing to build community confidence. Those are good leads to be getting, too!
Glad I only just started using tldraw weeks ago, time to move away.