6 ms·

Hm, I like Github but I don't like this. This is a great move, but we already have a code hosting monoculture, and this subtly piggy-backs on it towards lock-in

by avaer 9y ago

Hm, I like Github but I don't like this. This is a great move, but we already have a code hosting monoculture, and this subtly piggy-backs on it towards lock-in for tooling. Github knows orgs have inertia. Sorry for the slippery slopeism. I'm just imagining a future where shipping an app without a middleman moves to inconvenient, then annoying, then difficult, then impossible. Because this is exactly how we lost the ability to send email without paying the middleman privacy tax.

k__ 9y ago
Yes, seems a bit like Bitbucket/Jira stuff, and I don't know many people who liked it.
graphememes 9y ago
Honestly, the marketplace doesn't seem like a good fit for Github. I couldn't see my company or any organization that I am in buying services through Github when we have that capability in the following locations already: - Docker - Heroku - AWS - Google - Direct Feels more for "discovery" than purchasing.
eriknstr 9y ago
>this subtly piggy-backs on it towards lock-in for tooling FTA: "More than a dozen integrators have apps in GitHub Marketplace today, including Travis CI, Appveyor, Waffle, ZenHub, Sentry, and Codacy" Travis CI and many others were widespread prior to this marketplace. Seems to me that creating a marketplace is a logical way to collect these third-party services in one place.
- YPCrumble 9y ago
  ...and charge the going market rate of 30% of any revenue earned via the GitHub platform.
  - robzyb 9y ago
    TravisCI Pro Bootstrap direct is $69: https://travis-ci.com/plans https://travis-ci.com/plans TravisCI Pro Bootstrap via Github is $89: https://github.com/marketplace/travis-ci/plan/MDIyOk1hcmtldHBsYWNlTGlzdGluZ1BsYW43MQ== https://github.com/marketplace/travis-ci/plan/MDIyOk1hcmtldH...
    - devhead 9y ago
      any indication why the prices are different? it's not like they think we won't sniff that out, right?
      - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
        That's an oversight on Github's part and will end in a TOS change in one of two directions: price parity or complete prohibition of paid services that use GH integrations outside of the marketplace
        abustamam 9y ago
        Ironic that the "hub for open-source projects" could become a walled garden if the latter happens.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        stephenr 9y ago
        Irony is about intentions. Free-for-open is a marketing tactic, pure and simple.
        robzyb 9y ago
        > Ironic that the "hub for open-source projects" could become a walled garden if the latter happens. I would say that the irony occurred when the "hub for open-source projects" is a closed-source platform. (And I would say that as a paying user of Github that rather loves it.)
      - 9y ago
crb002 9y ago
Bitbucket has more traction than you think. Especially in megacorps who use JIRA. As long as the services have a docker container you can run locally I see no lock-in.
- devhead 9y ago
  bitbucket was a consideration for my team, until we went through the end of life with their other git saas stash. won't consider it again because of the pain we went through due to that. went over to gitlab after that.
  - stephenr 9y ago
    When was stash SaaS? Isn't Stash the on-premise version that was renamed to Bitbucket Server?
fennecfoxen 9y ago
> Because this is exactly how we lost the ability to send email without paying the middleman privacy tax. You want to see a tax? How does $72/user/year for code coverage tooling sound?
- tuukkah 9y ago
  What regime forces you to use paid code coverage tooling? What percentage is $72 of your annual per-developer budget?
- tedmiston 9y ago
  Would be nice if it were tiered per org size rather than per user.
rch 9y ago
Having a complete suite of tools will help Github compete with other options for tooling designed for bigger companies (various ALM suites, Atlassian, etc). I'm happy with it as long as third-party integrations are handled well.

by avaer 9y ago

k__ 9y ago

Yes, seems a bit like Bitbucket/Jira stuff, and I don't know many people who liked it.

graphememes 9y ago

Honestly, the marketplace doesn't seem like a good fit for Github. I couldn't see my company or any organization that I am in buying services through Github when we have that capability in the following locations already: - Docker - Heroku - AWS - Google - Direct Feels more for "discovery" than purchasing.

eriknstr 9y ago

>this subtly piggy-backs on it towards lock-in for tooling FTA: "More than a dozen integrators have apps in GitHub Marketplace today, including Travis CI, Appveyor, Waffle, ZenHub, Sentry, and Codacy" Travis CI and many others were widespread prior to this marketplace. Seems to me that creating a marketplace is a logical way to collect these third-party services in one place.

YPCrumble 9y ago
...and charge the going market rate of 30% of any revenue earned via the GitHub platform.
- robzyb 9y ago
  TravisCI Pro Bootstrap direct is $69: https://travis-ci.com/plans https://travis-ci.com/plans TravisCI Pro Bootstrap via Github is $89: https://github.com/marketplace/travis-ci/plan/MDIyOk1hcmtldHBsYWNlTGlzdGluZ1BsYW43MQ== https://github.com/marketplace/travis-ci/plan/MDIyOk1hcmtldH...
  - devhead 9y ago
    any indication why the prices are different? it's not like they think we won't sniff that out, right?
    - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
      That's an oversight on Github's part and will end in a TOS change in one of two directions: price parity or complete prohibition of paid services that use GH integrations outside of the marketplace
      - abustamam 9y ago
        Ironic that the "hub for open-source projects" could become a walled garden if the latter happens.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        stephenr 9y ago
        Irony is about intentions. Free-for-open is a marketing tactic, pure and simple.
        robzyb 9y ago
        > Ironic that the "hub for open-source projects" could become a walled garden if the latter happens. I would say that the irony occurred when the "hub for open-source projects" is a closed-source platform. (And I would say that as a paying user of Github that rather loves it.)
    - 9y ago

crb002 9y ago

Bitbucket has more traction than you think. Especially in megacorps who use JIRA. As long as the services have a docker container you can run locally I see no lock-in.

devhead 9y ago
bitbucket was a consideration for my team, until we went through the end of life with their other git saas stash. won't consider it again because of the pain we went through due to that. went over to gitlab after that.
- stephenr 9y ago
  When was stash SaaS? Isn't Stash the on-premise version that was renamed to Bitbucket Server?

fennecfoxen 9y ago

> Because this is exactly how we lost the ability to send email without paying the middleman privacy tax. You want to see a tax? How does $72/user/year for code coverage tooling sound?

tuukkah 9y ago
What regime forces you to use paid code coverage tooling? What percentage is $72 of your annual per-developer budget?
tedmiston 9y ago
Would be nice if it were tiered per org size rather than per user.

rch 9y ago

Having a complete suite of tools will help Github compete with other options for tooling designed for bigger companies (various ALM suites, Atlassian, etc). I'm happy with it as long as third-party integrations are handled well.