8 ms·

Compared to products like Salesforce, GitHub seems cheap to me. What to you is a fair price and why?

by nxzero 10y ago

hunvreus 10y ago
As stated at the end of my comment, a fair price is what they decide to charge. I simply don't like people to try and spin a price increase into a freebie.
- blowski 10y ago
  You mean... you don't like it when the marketing department of a profit-making enterprise does marketing in an attempt to make more profit? I work in a small agency, and our GitHub bill will go down as a result of these changes.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Yes, that type of "marketing". It's bullshit.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- wukerplank 10y ago
  I'd fire the PR department if they didn't give this a positive spin.
  - Xylakant 10y ago
    That doesn't mean that customers can't be annoyed being sold for stupid. The release announcement forgets to mention that collaborators are now costly - either a stupid oversight or part of the positive spin. A good marketing department should display things in a positive fashion, but they should also strive to be honest, so they're not loosing credibility.
    - dommer 10y ago
      "loosing credibility" is subjective in this case. Some orgs/people will be better off, some won't. I recall GitHub doing some extensive research on what their customer based wanted. This is most likely the outcome of that research. If I were to migration our org. over we would be worse off. Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. Poorly thought through perhaps?
      - Xylakant 10y ago
        > Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. I never said that I consider the move disingenuous. Almost no change will unilaterally benefit everybody. I dislike the communication that reads as if the change is unilaterally beneficial - where it clearly is not.
        dommer 10y ago
        I didn't say you did. Well, I don't think I did. Either way, we agree it wasn't disingenuous. I'd also agree this change won't be beneficial to all. And GitHub is also allowing everyone to make a choice. "...you'll have at least 12 months notice before any mandated change to your plan."
    - spraak 10y ago
      I see it is honest and very positive and supportive
- dommer 10y ago
  Isn't that one of the points of marketing: Highlight issues as a positives to decrease their impact to sales? ps. No pricing model will suit every org. The current model based on repo numbers has horrid steps which make no sense. eg. 125to300 private repos = $200to$450 cost. So if you need 126 repos you pay more than twice as much for that extra 1 repo. That makes little sense to me.
  - beberlei 10y ago
    yes, but you are comparing apples to oranges. If you had to jump from 125 to 300 users in ONE step as per the current pricing model instead of paying only for the marginal next user. Recognizing the repository steps are a pain for customers and not moving towards a pricing per _single_ repository, say between 1$ or 2$ per private repository - is just plain misleading. They could have still thrown in the personal plan with a large number of private repositories and fewer collaborators.
    - dommer 10y ago
      I'm not directly comparing, only highlighting the step issue. To me, give a per user or private repo cost. Allow the customer to choose between user or repo model, each addition costs a single fixed unit. Simple!
- wlll 10y ago
  You seem to be ignoring the comments to the contrary made on your original comment when stating this. Sure it's going to cost some orgs more, and it makes sense that it does. I'd wager that data at rest (lots of repos) costs a hell of lot less to run than active requests (lots of users). Personally my bill will be going down from $25 to $7, and I'm fine with that. My companies bill will be going down from $650/month to $583/month.
  - Xylakant 10y ago
    Lots of collaboraters does not translate to lots of requests. I'd be totally fine being charged by size of data, number of requests,... Number of people that I allow to view my code is a very bad metric for me, especially given that most of those people are already part of a paid account.
  - giovannibajo1 10y ago
    The point we are raising is there is an entire category of companies (agencies / software house) where the price is going up dramatically (5x, 10x or more). This happens because of the choice of billing outside collaborators (even read-only ones).
  - odonnellryan 10y ago
    > active requests (lots of users). Also, more users = more problems.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  It's not like it's a unilateral "price increase". My bill, for example, will be going down as a result of this. Personally I'm pretty stoked about this change. YMMV.
vacri 10y ago
> GitHub seems cheap to me At $9/user/mo, github is 900% more expensive than the $1/user/mo direct competitor BitBucket. BitBucket uses brackets rather than pure scaling, but their most expensive option - 101 users require the $200 unlimited accounts plan - is still only $2/user.
- musha68k 10y ago
  Maybe it's time to charge more for those closed source projects, just saying..
- ccannon 10y ago
  It's actually 2500% more expensive for the first 5 users. Github will never learn.
  - chucksmash 10y ago
    I think for the first five users the price is capped at $25 total ($5/user).
    - ccannon 10y ago
      I think you are correct. Boy that is a confusing way to word it on Github's end.
- frostymarvelous 10y ago
  I don't know who gives them advice, but that's just horrible. First, people ran to bitbucket visit if the per repo pricing. Now that that's been fixed, we're faced with high costs per user. That difference can be used to purchase other Atlassian products like Jira and Bamboo. How can github beat that value? I think github is satisfied with bring #1 for hosting open source software.
  - beberlei 10y ago
    god beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords between admins for example or private config for your webserver. Suddenly you see yourself at 394$ compared to the 7$ you paid before.

Compared to products like Salesforce, GitHub seems cheap to me. What to you is a fair price and why?

by nxzero 10y ago

Compared to products like Salesforce, GitHub seems cheap to me. What to you is a fair price and why?

As stated at the end of my comment, a fair price is what they decide to charge. I simply don't like people to try and spin a price increase into a freebie.

blowski 10y ago
You mean... you don't like it when the marketing department of a profit-making enterprise does marketing in an attempt to make more profit? I work in a small agency, and our GitHub bill will go down as a result of these changes.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Yes, that type of "marketing". It's bullshit.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
wukerplank 10y ago
I'd fire the PR department if they didn't give this a positive spin.
- Xylakant 10y ago
  That doesn't mean that customers can't be annoyed being sold for stupid. The release announcement forgets to mention that collaborators are now costly - either a stupid oversight or part of the positive spin. A good marketing department should display things in a positive fashion, but they should also strive to be honest, so they're not loosing credibility.
  - dommer 10y ago
    "loosing credibility" is subjective in this case. Some orgs/people will be better off, some won't. I recall GitHub doing some extensive research on what their customer based wanted. This is most likely the outcome of that research. If I were to migration our org. over we would be worse off. Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. Poorly thought through perhaps?
    - Xylakant 10y ago
      > Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. I never said that I consider the move disingenuous. Almost no change will unilaterally benefit everybody. I dislike the communication that reads as if the change is unilaterally beneficial - where it clearly is not.
      - dommer 10y ago
        I didn't say you did. Well, I don't think I did. Either way, we agree it wasn't disingenuous. I'd also agree this change won't be beneficial to all. And GitHub is also allowing everyone to make a choice. "...you'll have at least 12 months notice before any mandated change to your plan."
  - spraak 10y ago
    I see it is honest and very positive and supportive
dommer 10y ago
Isn't that one of the points of marketing: Highlight issues as a positives to decrease their impact to sales? ps. No pricing model will suit every org. The current model based on repo numbers has horrid steps which make no sense. eg. 125to300 private repos = $200to$450 cost. So if you need 126 repos you pay more than twice as much for that extra 1 repo. That makes little sense to me.
- beberlei 10y ago
  yes, but you are comparing apples to oranges. If you had to jump from 125 to 300 users in ONE step as per the current pricing model instead of paying only for the marginal next user. Recognizing the repository steps are a pain for customers and not moving towards a pricing per _single_ repository, say between 1$ or 2$ per private repository - is just plain misleading. They could have still thrown in the personal plan with a large number of private repositories and fewer collaborators.
  - dommer 10y ago
    I'm not directly comparing, only highlighting the step issue. To me, give a per user or private repo cost. Allow the customer to choose between user or repo model, each addition costs a single fixed unit. Simple!
wlll 10y ago
You seem to be ignoring the comments to the contrary made on your original comment when stating this. Sure it's going to cost some orgs more, and it makes sense that it does. I'd wager that data at rest (lots of repos) costs a hell of lot less to run than active requests (lots of users). Personally my bill will be going down from $25 to $7, and I'm fine with that. My companies bill will be going down from $650/month to $583/month.
- Xylakant 10y ago
  Lots of collaboraters does not translate to lots of requests. I'd be totally fine being charged by size of data, number of requests,... Number of people that I allow to view my code is a very bad metric for me, especially given that most of those people are already part of a paid account.
- giovannibajo1 10y ago
  The point we are raising is there is an entire category of companies (agencies / software house) where the price is going up dramatically (5x, 10x or more). This happens because of the choice of billing outside collaborators (even read-only ones).
- odonnellryan 10y ago
  > active requests (lots of users). Also, more users = more problems.
mindcrime 10y ago
It's not like it's a unilateral "price increase". My bill, for example, will be going down as a result of this. Personally I'm pretty stoked about this change. YMMV.

vacri 10y ago

> GitHub seems cheap to me At $9/user/mo, github is 900% more expensive than the $1/user/mo direct competitor BitBucket. BitBucket uses brackets rather than pure scaling, but their most expensive option - 101 users require the $200 unlimited accounts plan - is still only $2/user.

musha68k 10y ago
Maybe it's time to charge more for those closed source projects, just saying..
ccannon 10y ago
It's actually 2500% more expensive for the first 5 users. Github will never learn.
- chucksmash 10y ago
  I think for the first five users the price is capped at $25 total ($5/user).
  - ccannon 10y ago
    I think you are correct. Boy that is a confusing way to word it on Github's end.
frostymarvelous 10y ago
I don't know who gives them advice, but that's just horrible. First, people ran to bitbucket visit if the per repo pricing. Now that that's been fixed, we're faced with high costs per user. That difference can be used to purchase other Atlassian products like Jira and Bamboo. How can github beat that value? I think github is satisfied with bring #1 for hosting open source software.
- beberlei 10y ago
  god beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords between admins for example or private config for your webserver. Suddenly you see yourself at 394$ compared to the 7$ you paid before.