3 ms·

I don't want to be rude and I am making some assumptions here (also no knowledge or experience of running a company). But if you have 12 people dev, assuming th

by pavs 16y ago

I don't want to be rude and I am making some assumptions here (also no knowledge or experience of running a company). But if you have 12 people dev, assuming they are being paid for their work and not working pro-bono. Assuming its a company. You are probably spending somewhere around 600k - 750k per year on these developers. Surely 100/month is not too much? Like I said, I am making some assumptions. Maybe I am missing something.

drewcrawford 16y ago
It's a question of opportunity cost. Are the new features worth $100/month as opposed to the old way of paying $10-20/month? Some people will say yes. Some people will say no. It's a little silly to say "Well, you're spending 600k-750k a year, you can afford it." They can also afford a bouncy castle. The right question is--does this provide enough value to justify the cost? For the parent, no, it doesn't.
- pavs 16y ago
  I don't follow the logic here or the bouncy castle analogy. A private repo adds more direct value to a company that has 12 devs than a bouncy castle (ok maybe indirectly it might make them happy and more productive, but its stretching a bit). I understand the question of whether it provides value, and it would be sufficient argument if you are company with lets say ~50k/yr on expenses. But when you are spending (assumptions of course) 600k-750k JUST employing your dev team, I just don't see how this $1100/year is too much; esp when the cost is associated with a core aspect of your business. We are not talking about renting a water cooler here.
  - drewcrawford 16y ago
    > A private repo adds more direct value They already have private repos. The new features are permissions and a dashboard. Those particular features might be nice to haves, but for many small or midsized dev teams are not "a core aspect of [their] business." It's not unreasonable to look at the new offerings ad say "I'm not going to pay 5x for a dashboard and better permissions."
jpcx01 16y ago
You're right, 100 isn't too much, but it seems wasteful. We dont need 50 repos. Drew hit the nail on the head. Couldnt have said it better.

by pavs 16y ago

drewcrawford 16y ago

It's a question of opportunity cost. Are the new features worth $100/month as opposed to the old way of paying $10-20/month? Some people will say yes. Some people will say no. It's a little silly to say "Well, you're spending 600k-750k a year, you can afford it." They can also afford a bouncy castle. The right question is--does this provide enough value to justify the cost? For the parent, no, it doesn't.

pavs 16y ago
I don't follow the logic here or the bouncy castle analogy. A private repo adds more direct value to a company that has 12 devs than a bouncy castle (ok maybe indirectly it might make them happy and more productive, but its stretching a bit). I understand the question of whether it provides value, and it would be sufficient argument if you are company with lets say ~50k/yr on expenses. But when you are spending (assumptions of course) 600k-750k JUST employing your dev team, I just don't see how this $1100/year is too much; esp when the cost is associated with a core aspect of your business. We are not talking about renting a water cooler here.
- drewcrawford 16y ago
  > A private repo adds more direct value They already have private repos. The new features are permissions and a dashboard. Those particular features might be nice to haves, but for many small or midsized dev teams are not "a core aspect of [their] business." It's not unreasonable to look at the new offerings ad say "I'm not going to pay 5x for a dashboard and better permissions."

jpcx01 16y ago

You're right, 100 isn't too much, but it seems wasteful. We dont need 50 repos. Drew hit the nail on the head. Couldnt have said it better.