Project for the web: Change licensing to allow for extensibility at a sensible price
Currently extending Project for the Web with the Power Platform requires a Project Plan P3/P5 subscription. This very expensive given that you already have to pay for a PowerApps subscription as well. This is especially drastic if you need to provide access for team members. Their numbers are normally much higher than the PMs.
We are introducing a 'light' variant of our PM tool which will only use PowerBI for now and are hoping this will develop into something where you dont need to have E3 + P3 + PowerApps Plan 2, Power Automate Plan 2, Power Bi Pro (+Dynamics?) to normally use the functionalities..
Thomas Henkelmann commented
Without the possibility to clearly communicate a stable (how many changes in the last 6 months?) and attractive (see cost for P3, PAP1, POwer BI Pro) licensing and cost structure to clients, the new platform won't fly. What a pity given the possibilities that we see!
In order to fully make use of Project for the web you need to set the working time for the people on projects. This is impossible to do without also having a Power Apps license. As far as I am aware there are no other products that Microsoft makes that require you to license another product in order to make use of them as designed.
At a minimum Project for the web should include a Power Apps P1 license that allows you to use the Project and Resource hub.
Agree with this statement
James Boman commented
Other O365 workloads like SharePoint Online, Dynamics, etc. come with the PowerApps and Flow "Seeded" capabilities for those workloads.
- If you have SharePoint you can use PowerApps and Flow against SharePoint.
- If you have Dynamics you can use PowerApps and Flow against Dynamics.
Unfortunately Project doesn't follow this strategy, and requires both a high-level product SKU (P3) and standalone PowerApps licensing (per App or Per user - or in pre Oct 2019 terminology PowerApps P1 or P2). To use the Power BI content pack included with Project also requires additional licensing.
This pricing appears extreme and needs to improve to make extensibility possible.
Trutz-Sebastian Stephani commented
@Michael: Well, at the moment you aren't allowed to do even that. Therefore some change seems necessary.