Maybe we band together and get a group Team account that is shared by a confederation of solo developers, solopreneurs, and hackers? I would be happy to lead on that and commit to however many seats people would need.
TLDR: I think it is very apparent that the individual and small group developers are being pushed aside and @cass has a great idea of building what could lead to a democratized version of this. I would love to see something like that. However, based on the current implementation and roll-out, we should probably wait and see how this is going to pan out before we try to solve today’s problems; because they are not likely to persist tomorrow.
Unpopular Opinion Warning - The Rest of the Story
If you are a solo dev or a small group, I would honestly take a beat and wait on moving forward with Teams…especially if you are on the fence. It has only been 2 days, but with multiple orgs now on Teams and projects for several clients in play I can say that (at least in my use cases) the main value of it to those clients is in the sense of security they feel against their data leakage by not having OpenAI train on their chats. Other than that, and a message cap increase, the experience and capabilities are very much the same if not hindered in some cases.
I don’t want to throw shade AT ALL, but what the “Teams surprise” really feels like to me is a very quick response to “Why can we not get any answers on simple group billing questions” and “What is taking so long for smaller devs to get Enterprise” than anything else. At least for me, it makes perfect sense now why my team billing inquiries have been ignored for several weeks.
I acknowledge that the amount of resources required to manage such massive growth for any organization are extreme. However, in the end, the answer to those questions turns out to be:
“Well, because here is another product, a new intermediate tier if you will, that solves at least one of those problems and, if you have 149 other people complaining about your issue, then you’ll get some priority support on whatever that other thing is.”
More than anything, it really appears to more strictly stratify OpenAI’s priority between large firms and small firms. So, IMHO I would wait until some of the fundamental issues with adopting it are sorted out (and a new iteration is released next week ) before you dive head first into it and start unsubscribing from any personal Plus accounts (or purchasing multiple accounts to increase your message cap…because maybe just use the API side). The GPT Discord AMA from today gives a little insight into this thinking. Aside from the layup questions, the responses given by the team to some of the harder hitting questions boil down to: “We know it is a major issue and it is a priority and we will handle it in time.” So, I guess what all my diatribe really means is just: let’s wait and see.
I also looked into it and it appears all members of the Team have to have the same domain email address?
This is not a problem for me as I could create emails on my domain daily but I think for most solo people it would be weird to have another email address to log in with? (different builder profile, etc…)
I’d be happy to cover the extra $5 per month for people so the Teams account is same piece as Pro for people.
So are people really interested ?
If I get 10 or more “I’m in” comments I will talk to OpenAI sales team and make it happen.
In fact, I believe that solo developers should not be excluded from improvements. Expanding the extra usage limit would offer substantial value to any user who engages with this tool in a meaningful way.
Imagine, for example, if GPT 4.5 or GPT-5 is only released for those who have Teams. It wouldn’t make any sense.