3 ms·
What's with all the negativity? This is really good pricing - all individuals now pay much less (a flat rate of $7), all small shops pay almost the same thing (
by sudhirj 10y ago
What's with all the negativity? This is really good pricing - all individuals now pay much less (a flat rate of $7), all small shops pay almost the same thing ($30 to $90 for 3 to 10 people). Both groups no longer need to think twice about creating repos, which has always been a huge pain that I've seen. I've even thought twice about microservices because the repo cost would be a pain.
This will affect enterprises - but then they're either already on Github Enterprise or are used to per user pricing anyway. Google Apps, Slack etc all have (quantitavely similar) per user pricing. Google doesn't charge you based on the number of emails you send, nor does Slack charge based on the number of private rooms there are - that would be dumb.
The band of companies between small shops and enterprises are likely to be affected, but then this is really employee lunch money.
- Etheryte 10y agoAs pointed out by numerous other comments, this pricing model makes no sense for a lot of use-cases: external collabs, inactive collabs, wide org structure etc. Many companies would expect to now pay a magnitude or multiple more than before, this is hardly "lunch money".
- pilif 10y ago> This will affect enterprises - but then they're either already on Github Enterprise or are used to per user pricing anyway my organization currently contains 15 github users. 2 of which are used by error reporting tools to open bugs (Sentry, Crashlytics), one of which is used by Jenkins, 3 of which are outside contractor for which github now will get the money multiple times as companies move to the same billing method. We had 9 repos on github (and about 20 smaller ones with less collaboration on a self-hoste gitolite installation), so we paid $300 per year. Now I have unlimited repos of which I still only use 9, but now I pay $1300 per year, whereby 3 of these accounts I'm paying for aren't actually real people and another 3 of these accounts I'm paying for even though multiple other companies are also paying for them. Aside of the nearly 5x increase in price, I think it's also unfair having to pay for practically unused bug-reporting-only accounts and having to pay for accounts that are already paid for by a multitude of other companies. I don't think this is good pricing for me. Also as this isn't just a moderate increase, but a whopping 5x increase, I also strongly consider moving back away to a self-hosted solution because increasing the price by 5x is breaking the trust put into github as a third-party provider. Increasing the price a bit is fine. But 5x is excessive.
- VLM 10y agoThere is the threshold effect to consider also. Maintaining a gitlab instance is kind of ridiculous vs $300/yr. On the other hand, its not exactly rocket surgery and $1300/yr would probably cover it. So its not a theoretical issue in an isolated abstract sense but market position issue. The competition isn't the employee lunch fund but is actual competitors. Aside from maintaining your own instance, I have no experience or contact with them but githost.io offers quite a bit for less than $100/month.
- skywritergr 10y agoIt sounds like it would be a big help if github offered unlimited read-only/bot accounts. Not sure how technically feasible is that but it doesn't sound impossible.
- tomschlick 10y agoOr as someone mentioned above, if they went the Slack route of not charging for users who don't push/pull code in a 30/60 day period. That way you could still have collaborator users (issues, PRs, etc) and only pay for the users who actually code.
- bsimpson 10y agoAre the bug-only accounts reporting against your private repos? Public contributors are still free.