3 ms·

Not so bad -- * Grandfather current customers, which gitlab did at near minimum here (current year / ~no changes ?). ~Lifetime / tier would be better, esp as a

Not so bad -- * Grandfather current customers, which gitlab did at near minimum here (current year / ~no changes ?). ~Lifetime / tier would be better, esp as a growing co should be fine here revenue wise. Better current customers sing your praises internally + externally than say you're yet another couldn't-care-less quarter-driven bigco / sales-driven vc co: growth wins. * Put new stuff in new plans/tiers. Gitlab VPs seem to be choosing a weak balance here. I'm all for offering higher prices. Trick is, when adding stuff, people should pay more for more, and same / less for standing still. Let hungrier/spendier teams spend more, and cost-sensitive ones happily spread the good word. Not what happened here? Gitlab seems big enough that all this doesn't really matter though, they are probably reaching a customer size and capital-intensitive enough moat that they don't care toooo much. --- A good contrast is github / microsoft, which also is way into clever pricing: - Way cheaper per-user at all tiers. We got tier-shifted at some point, but don't recall any pricing funniness during that. - Adding customer abilities to spend infinite amounts, but via new layers, like pay-as-you-go CI/CD offerings that do not gauge existing users. I expect the prices to go down, not up, as they figure out more scaling tricks / computing improves and they try to get users more addicted. GH/MS is probably working on a much bigger timescale than GitLab, as GH doesn't need to look at juicing numbers to fundraise / sell while buyers are willing, and instead focus on being a friendly shift-left answer to AWS/GCP

ajford 6y ago
Agreed. My last employer had been on the same GH tier for over 6 years or something like that, and was on a much older tier. It lacked some of the new features, but the price-point was right for our team size, and we weren't yet at the point where the newer features (ci/cd stuff like Actions) were worth the cost hike. We were planning on switching tiers to get the new features, which is exactly what you described. Let those who want the new things pay for them if/when they decide to make the switch.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  That's the correct way to do this.

ajford 6y ago

Agreed. My last employer had been on the same GH tier for over 6 years or something like that, and was on a much older tier. It lacked some of the new features, but the price-point was right for our team size, and we weren't yet at the point where the newer features (ci/cd stuff like Actions) were worth the cost hike. We were planning on switching tiers to get the new features, which is exactly what you described. Let those who want the new things pay for them if/when they decide to make the switch.

jacquesm 6y ago
That's the correct way to do this.