I think I get the gist of what you’re saying, but here’s where I disagree - if the basis of the issue lies around a small percentage of paid-plan process hogs and a high percentage of free-plan process hogs, Adalo shouldn’t punish the middle makers for something we have no control over.
The low percent, high consumers should be offered an alternative, such as dedicated servers, to get them out of the way, and as for the free-plan users, there’s a simple solution: stop offering the service for free.
A free trial (14 days, 30 days, etc) is sufficient and falls in line with what most other platforms do already. Or, if to keep a free plan, place the heavy-handed limitations there but don’t confine the paying customers because the free customers are taking advantage of the system Adalo developed.
If I’m forced to pay more for less in return to satisfy the greed of free plan users (and the subsequent catering to them by Adalo over their paying customers), with an outlook of reducing those users over a period of time, count me out.
Frankly, Adalo should split their offerings: hosted options and non-hosted, where a customer can pay just for the editor and offsite everything else, because as it stands, a lot of makers with any intended growth already offsite a lot of their infrastructure since Adalo’s is lacking. And many other platforms do the same. It makes the most sense.
But there in lies the issue of allowing makers to download their code from Adalo, which Adalo clearly states belongs to them; that alone is actually quite concerning but another topic.
I surely hope Adalo comes to a better direction, and preferably soon. My monthly renewal is coming due and should I find a reliable alternative before then and hear nothing from Adalo about this topic, then I’ll likely cut losses instead of dumping more money and time into a black hole.