I’m struggling to understand the thinking behind the recent pricing changes.
From the perspective of an independent developer, the new pricing puts the platform at roughly £/$2000+ per year, which moves it from an experimental / learning tool into something that feels out of reach for many individual developers.
The issue isn’t just the price itself, but the way the transition has been experienced. Many developers were drawn into the ecosystem while pricing was accessible, only to see substantial increases shortly afterwards. That creates a perception problem even if the underlying reasons are valid.
If the pricing reflects the genuine operating cost of the platform, that raises a separate concern about long-term accessibility as AI capabilities continue to expand. More broadly, Google has historically built enormous goodwill with developers by making powerful tools widely accessible, TensorFlow is a good example of that philosophy.
Antigravity initially felt like it was following the same path, bringing advanced capability to a much wider audience. The recent changes, however, give the impression that the door has partially closed again. Judging by the discussions across developer forums, this perception seems fairly widespread.
It would be helpful to understand the longer-term strategy here, particularly how independent developers and small teams are expected to remain part of the ecosystem as the platform evolves.