17 ms·
A small comparison: Team | Cost Before | Cost Now 1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25 1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70 11 repos, 5 users
by arnvald 10y ago
A small comparison:
Team | Cost Before | Cost Now
1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25
1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70
11 repos, 5 users | $50 | $25
11 repos, 10 users | $50 | $70
5 repos, 50 users | $25 | $430
50 repos, 5 users | $100 | $25
50 repos, 50 users | $100 | $430
I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and future requests from clients) fall into this category, but who else?
The other case where it becomes cheaper is personal accounts.
In all the other cases - it just looks like a raise of prices.
- chippy 10y agoThe numbers in the above chart are dollars, not number of repositories for those who are puzzled by it. It appears that along with this announcement they are raising the prices of an account.
- arnvald 10y agoHey, thanks for pointing that out, I updated it to be more clear!
- reycharles 10y agoAt work we have a bitbucket server with 6 users and 25 repositories. We recently switched to bitbucket server a few months ago. I'm sure we will get more repositories in the future. Some of the repositories are just a small collection of scripts while others are fairly big software projects.
- arnvald 10y agoAre you working on projects for clients or on your own product? Also, maybe I'm mistaken and this change actually makes sense. Until now I had a one repo called `utils` and we kept random scripts there. Now there won't be any cost for adding new repository, so it might happen we'll start splitting that one.
- giovannibajo1 10y agoEven for software houses, it's VERY problematic as we add customers to projects as external collaborators and we're going to get billed for that forever, even if most customers have very light usage, and even for non active projects. I was thrilled by this news but it's going to be completely unaffordable for us. We have 29 users and 51 external collaborators. We have recently upgraded to the Platinum plan ($2460/yr), but switching to the new user plan would raise the bill beyond affordable for us ($8k+ per year). I think it is a big mistake to bill for external collaborators, it completely screws software houses that need this model to use GitHub.
- Xylakant 10y agowe're in the same situation. I'm looking at at least a tenfold increase. All of a sudden self hosting a gitlab instance looks cost-efficient.
- taspeotis 10y agoI keep my eye on Microsoft's Visual Studio Team Services. It has a bit of a clunky name and aimed more at enterprises but I think at some point they will position it as a competitor to GitHub. It's free for the first five developers, and no charge for "stakeholder" user accounts. https://www.visualstudio.com/pricing/visual-studio-team-services-pricing-vs https://www.visualstudio.com/pricing/visual-studio-team-serv... So 29 users would be $182/m (check my maths) and you'd pay nothing for the external collaborators (assuming they fit the "stakeholder" role ... no need access to the code).
- JBiserkov 10y agoYes, your math is correct, verified with their pricing calculator https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/calculator/?service=visual-studio-team-services https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/calculator/?servic... Thank you for posting this!
- bad_user 10y agoIf you no longer want/need the social aspects of GitHub, you can just move to GitLab. Much more affordable and you can self host it yourself. We have an on premise GitLab installation. Besides the rare upgrade, it's pretty hands off. And it's costing us $0 in licensing fees for over 60 users ;-)
- mrweasel 10y agoWe have a tons of repositories, most are currently on BItbucket, because GitHub was to expensive. Only our largest projects are on GitHub. Our team is maybe 8 developers, depending on consultants, interns and other temporary employments, but we have 20 - 30 repos. I think for small companies that do all development in-house, having large number of repos, and few developer is a pretty normal. The way I look at it, GitHub is moving to a model where they assume that the number of employees is more indicative to the amount you can afford to pay, compared to previously where having a large number of repos meant you could pay more. It will certainly help attract smaller businesses to GitHub.
- pron 10y agoExcept that now GitHub is 9x more expensive than BitBucket (and for a team under 5 developers, GitHub is $25 vs. BitBucket's $0).
- mrweasel 10y agoWell, 7x, but yes, GitHub is more expensive. $70 for 10 developers is still really cheap. Personally I prefer the GitHub interface and $60 is still within the range of even smaller companies.
- pron 10y agoIt's a bigger difference, especially as BB is $200 for unlimited users and unlimited repos. For that money, you can get 25 users on GH. 25 users on BB is $25. So on average it is ~8x difference, which then grows beyond 25 collaborators.
- teen 10y agoBitbucket is terrible though, so what does it matter?
- TAForObvReasons 10y agoCan you clarify? Why is Bitbucket "terrible"?
- thesimon 10y ago>I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and future requests from clients) fall into this category, but who else? Companies using micro services? Companies that don't want to have one big repository for their software?
- arnvald 10y agoGood point. Also, before having 1 repository was a way to avoid higher bill. Now it'd require to have just 1 user which I doubt anyone will try to do.
- Normal_gaussian 10y agoThen again with git this isn't so much of a problem, if you aren't wanting to play the blame game this works quite well.
- corecoder 10y agoWhat made our small team choose BitBucket over GitHub was the consideration that having to pay for # repositories would force us (and about everyone) to organise code not based on development convenience, but on $ convenience, which means put everything in a few very big and messy repositories.
- lifeisstillgood 10y agoBut to me this makes sense - one naturally will have more repos than developers, and as it is costly to add a developer to your team, but adding a repo is a command line, then making cost a function of developers seems to align most software teams with githubs incentives.
- caf 10y agoRight - and the total cost of a developer is far more than $9/month. The real place where it hurts is users who aren't paid employees.
- bergie 10y agoAt least in our case the new pricing would be couple % below what we used to pay under the per-repo pricing scheme. And about 30% less if we merge our two organizations.
- daemin 10y agoThe last few places that I worked at only had one big repository hosting all of the projects. They weren't using Git though, SVN and Perforce. In some ways I can see the ability to have fewer users and more repositories suited towards consultancies (specifically web development). Where there are a lot of projects and customers.
- arnvald 10y agoYeah, I worked at a company that used one big repository for all their software. It wasn't to save money (they were spending quite a lot of money on other tools), but it was just more comfortable for them - in terms of code management, deployment etc. But still, with the old Github pricing, they were paying just a few bucks for a team of 10 people, so in this case getting paid per user makes much more sense.
- EnderMB 10y agoThat kind of thing is quite common in small agency environments, where you might have a bunch of different clients on support contracts paying for x hours a month of time. With that being said, in those types of environments, cost is everything, and BitBucket is still the cheaper option.
- simon_renoult 10y agoI'm a nodejs developer. I use its package manager `npm` on a daily basis. `nodejs` packaging philosophy enforces you to break every lib into smaller modules in order to have small, consistent, easy to reason about, modules. While being a great philosophy, it requires developers to maintain many projects, thus owning many github repositories (often private when working for clients). This is a great news for me.
- jvvw 10y agoWe have a few users and a large number of repos - small team of developers supporting research projects in a university department.
- wbillingsley 10y agoBitBucket is free if you have an academic email address https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing
- 0xmohit 10y agoIt's possible that people have started realizing the advantages of monolithic version control [0] which prompted Github. Team | Cost Before | Cost Now 1 repo, 100 users | $25 | $880 [0] http://danluu.com/monorepo/ http://danluu.com/monorepo/
- odonnellryan 10y agoI think this price increase is OK. You'd be hard pressed to find any enterprise product that would only charge you $25/mo for 100 users.
- snorremd 10y agoAt my workplace we have 1/5 ratio of users to repositories on our git server. We tend to create separate repositories for modules, applications and even prototypes. In any case if we were to use Github their new pay-per-user model would make more sense for us than the pay-per-repository model.
- tedmiston 10y agoAny company with 5-10 users, has at least 5-10 repos if they're structuring things properly. That said, I prefer self-hosted GitLab (free) when there are a large number of repos.
- mindcrime 10y agoI'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repos My feeling is that this is VERY common. Most of the software companies I've worked for had between 5-25 people, max, who would need github access. But if you break things up in a granular fashion repo-wise, you can easily have dozens or more repos. In my own case, we only have about 5 people who need access, but we're already sitting on a bunch of repos and will be needing more soon'ish. I was just debating about if/when to upgrade to the next plan level w/ github, and now I don't have to. Obviously different companies have different scenarios, but this is a win for us, and I expect it's a win for a lot of other organizations as well.
- apocalyptic0n3 10y agoWe're at 394 repos and 13 active users (with 32 disabled users) on our self-hosted GitLab install. All repos are private as well. We're a software agency that usually has 15-20 different projects being actively developed. It adds up quick
- dimino 10y agoFor a 50 person group, $430 is peanuts, it's just peanuts. I'm sorry, I just don't feel for these people, this is getting upset about the $0.10 charge for butter when you paid $10.00 for the popcorn.
- alfg 10y agoWe have about 300+ users and 100+ repos. We moved to Bitbucket because it would be too expensive to keep using Github. Looks like the pricing change would make it even more expensive for us. I personally also use Gitlab for private side project repos and only use Github now for open source projects.
- krschultz 10y agoAt Gilt we had a ratio of ~10 repos per engineer. #microservices.
- hc000 10y agowow... our bill will be 8x.... $xxx to $6xxx
- HeyLaughingBoy 10y agoPut me on that list: small business doing lots of very small projects. I just upgraded my gh account to the next tier a few months ago and now it looks like my bill will be going back down.
- msbarnett 10y ago> I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and future requests from clients) fall into this category, but who else? Any startup architected around microservices, for one