8 ms·

Tell HN: Gitlab Premium pricing increases incoming $19 to $29

156 points by dijit 4y ago

kkirsche 4y ago
The pricing of Gitlab already got pretty insane on the upper tiers for a large business. I regret ever advocating for them with how expensive they are becoming.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  For me it was less the increase in price, what was bad enough, and more the shifting of functionality to higher tiers and basically the evisceration of the open source version.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jrochkind1 4y ago
The announcement: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/03/02/gitlab-premium-update/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/03/02/gitlab-premium-upda...
raro11 4y ago
kthnxbye We were contemplating going to GitHub. This sealed the deal. > As GitLab’s first price increase in more than five years How long ago did they force Bronze users to their "Premium? Feels like less than two years ago.
- zeeZ 4y ago
  I still have the email > Effective January 26, 2021, GitLab has phased out the GitLab Bronze/Starter subscription tier.
pid-1 4y ago
> As GitLab’s first price increase in more than five years, this new pricing for GitLab Premium reflects the evolution of GitLab from source control and CI to the most comprehensive DevSecOps Platform. Over the past five years, GitLab Premium added more than 400 features, leading to improved cycle times, enhanced developer experience, and better collaboration for our customers As a paying customer, I don't use many (most?) of those 400 new features. Meanwhile, stuff that could be game-changing for me like making gitlab-runner easier to deploy or local pipeline testing are being kicked down the road since forever. Search still sucks. There is no cheap licensing for read only, non developer folks. That's it, I'm moving on. Luckly I have a whole year before renewing our licenses.
- crote 4y ago
  I agree. GitLab was arguably a better product for a while back when GitHub didn't even have integrated CI, but at this point most of the features they are adding just feel pointless to me. I primarily just want a place to store my code, track issues, and run automated tests. GitLab was already a bit of a tricky sell due to most open source code being on Github, but now it is either $48 / year for Github or $348 for GitLab. The math just isn't mathing.
  - anonymoustrolol 4y ago
    Are you getting $48/year on Github? I'm on the sticker rate of $49/month. Doh!
    - rhaway84773 4y ago
      https://github.com/pricing https://github.com/pricing I see only 2 non free options. $48/yr and $231/yr for enterprise. Why would you be paying ~$600/yr when the enterprise option is less than $250?
re-thc 4y ago
Free tiers have already been reduced. There are already new ways to make $$$ e.g. the faster runners. What justifies the price increase? Sure you have new features but you also have better scaling from more customers. Meanwhile is this a hint for Github to also increase prices? Hm.
- crote 4y ago
  It was already $228 / year for GitLab vs $48 / year for Github. This rate hike raises it to $348 vs $48. I don't think anyone at Github is currently too worried about prices.
  - re-thc 4y ago
    From my experiences med-large organisations wanted SSO/SAML as a minimum, which is either Gitlab premium or Github enterprise.
zeeZ 4y ago
I think this change does a great job to further solidify the Teams plan for smaller orgs. At GitHub.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Agreed. GitHub is the only one I'd pay for if I had to. They're just too far ahead of everyone else.
kdmytro 4y ago
I am a former Starter subscriber. This will be the second time they bump the price for my team.
raro11 4y ago
Discussed at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996382
- remram 4y ago
  Sounds like @dang should merge, those are exact duplicates
josephcsible 4y ago
Does GitLab still reject community PRs to their open-source core that would compete with their paid offerings?
- speedgoose 4y ago
  That would be weird of them to merge them no ? The community can maintain a fork, but I wouldn’t except any company to maintain code that compete with their business model.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    It's weird how you paint such a weird thing as a normal thing? I'd expect any open source focused company* to merge beneficial changes. You're essentially saying their business model is not just keeping things closed source but running interference on open source... * Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration. - https://about.gitlab.com/company/ https://about.gitlab.com/company/
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      They're not really open source, they're open core which is a little different. Sure, their core's license is open source compatible, but their philosophy is definitely more about stratifying between free and paid.
      - BoorishBears 4y ago
        Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say Gitlab is an open source company, which is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. Does a mission statement starting with "Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration" mean they're focused on open source or not?
        satvikpendem 4y ago
DarkNova6 4y ago
I would instantly subscribe if there was a 10$ subscription per month. I don't need all of the premium features. A simple Basic+ with more speed and storage would already be a fine deal.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, have you looked at some of the other hosted copies of GitLab? They have "marketplace" listings in AWS, Azure, and GCP, and I'd bet other cloud providers have a similar "click button, get GitLab" setup. This train of thought presupposes that the $10 you want to pay is to have someone else run the compute, "s3", database, and runners for you, versus "self-hosting"
  - DarkNova6 4y ago
    my intention was to back the project and help further development of Gitlab. I don't strictly "need" more features for my private projects. But you have a great recommendation regardless, thank you
dijit 4y ago
I have been a big fan of gitlab and have definitely promoted its use in the organisations I have worked (putting a $ amount on it, I'm probably responsible for $30,000/y in their revenue, which doesn't sound like a lot now that I'm typing it out). But honestly I'm extremely displeased with this. I guess nobody is ever happy to pay more, but gitlab was already more expensive than github. More staggering is that there's no discount pricing for self-hosting your gitlab instance, so you may as well use Gitlab's resources on the SaaS platform, which is more expensive for gitlab themselves -- yes, annoyingly, storage over a certain volume is an additional cost, but you'd pay it anyway if you self-host, so whatever. I know there's a lot of features that I don't use and that I begrudge paying for, just like everyone else (who probably have a different set of things), and I know the cost is probably trying to be just under the cost to switch away, but 52% for features I don't care about mostly is steep. This is also the second increase in 2 years, even though marketing says otherwise, because "Starter" and "Bronze" no longer exists and was absurdly cheaper than Premium. ($4/u/m) ---- Look: Going from $4 to $29 per user in 2 years is terrifying as a person who is now writing checks on behalf of my company. For context, Perforce is basically a market leader in Gamedev (and as a consequence using gitlab for me is a fight against normality) and it's considered "too expensive" (to the point google made their own) but a necessary evil because there's no alternative at $41,25/u/m So my users who use gitlab and perforce (everyone using gitlab is also using perforce) is now going to be $70+. If you are balking at the cost of hosting, give us a cheaper licensing plan for self-hosting. - the idea that CODEOWNERS, protected branches and approval rules is worth $29 per user (even if they're non-coders!) is just absurd.
- asdajksah2123 4y ago
  Promoting Gitlab was the biggest mistake I made. Every team I promoted them to has been bitten time and again by their licensing, feature, and pricing changes. Many other services I've promoted have also seen price changes, etc. but I've never felt genuinely frustrated with the changes in any of those like I have with Gitlab.
- bink 4y ago
  I mentioned this in the other thread, but the excuse vendors often use for not offering a self-hosting discount is that their support costs are often much higher for self-hosted customers. I've never been provided direct evidence of this, but that's what they say.
vorpalhex 4y ago
I've generally moved from Gitlab to Gitea + Drone. Gitlab has switched into the "squeeze money from customers phase". It is time to leave.
- number6 4y ago
  I selfhost gitlab for years now. My preffered road.
  - bdcravens 4y ago
    If you need the features in the Premium offering, you still have to purchase licensing.
  - dijit 4y ago
    There's only a couple of missing features (for me, anyway) if you self host compared to the premium licensed self-hosted version (which, insanely, is the same price as the SaaS product!): * CODEOWNERS EDIT: Not true anymore! -- ~ * Protected branches (IE; preventing people committing to master/main) ~ * Approval Rules in merge requests * Merge trains (auto-merging if another merge request depends on another). * Viewing Jira issues in Gitlab
    - mantas 4y ago
      Protected branches is no longer premium-only.
    - number6 4y ago
      Merge trains would be nice, protected branches definitely exist. Never missed the other features tbh
    - matthew-wegner 4y ago
      I did a quick Slack bot that messages a channel with open merge requests every morning. I really wanted to show the approval status, too, just as a reminder for someone to go "oh, that's approved, I should go merge". But the entire approval-related API fields are deliberately removed on free tier, not just the web UI "require approval" functionality. I found this to be pretty heavy handed, especially for a self-hosted instance.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> Over the past five years, GitLab Premium added more than 400 features, leading to improved cycle times, enhanced developer experience, and better collaboration for our customers. Great; now instead of half-baked box-checking features just pulling dev time away from making their features fully functional, they're also used to justify making the product half again as expensive. Now I wonder: Does GitLab actually believe that their features are 5-8x as valuable as GitHub, or is it just a cash grab?
- kadomony 4y ago
  I suspect it's pressure from investors to increase profit that's going to backfire and lead to more layoffs and migration to GitHub.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Which is funny because I know a lot of people moved to GitLab after GitHub was acquired by Microsoft.
    - geodel 4y ago
      I mean those folks were taking a principled stand. I am sure they wouldn't mind at all paying a few bucks extra now.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
        Some of it was probably principle, but plenty of it was just people who had been burned by MS before.
        taftster 4y ago
        Right. But the irony is, normally compared to how bungled Microsoft acquisitions are, it seems Github is allowed to continue mostly independent without a lot of oversight? At this point, though still skeptical, it seems to me that Github is not quite beholden to Microsoft and is actually innovating and adding new value. I totally jumped to Gitlab when the acquisition happened and recommended it to everyone. But now I'm back to thinking Github is the best choice. The biggest thing for me was free private repositories, which I believe Gitlab forced Github to put into place due to competition. Github has been on its way back up in my evaluation ever sense.
debacle 4y ago
Gitlab's pull request functionality is inferior to both Github and Teams. We use them because their Kanban is nice and they're a bit more "one stop shop" than Github, but this pricing change doesn't make sense for us.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  > We use them because their Kanban is nice Did you notice Github's improvements to "projects" over the past couple years? I feel like they missed doing a big announcement, cause it was like gradually implemented as a "beta" and then slowly filled in. But it's much better kanban now. Might still not be as good as gitlab's, I couldn't say.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  I don't work for GL but I'd be interested to hear what you think makes the GL pull request functionality inferior (my guess is you're going to say the number of "actions" available that target the GH API but it's just a guess)
  - debacle 4y ago
    Large PRs are buggy, the flow is less intuitive, and in certain instances the PR UI just "breaks" and you need to refresh the page. Sometimes diffs are bad (I would bet github uses diff -ow, or something similar) and in general PRs are a drag.
    - mdaniel 4y ago
      Thank you. I've been following these family of bugs for what feels like years (although this specific one has _only_ been open 6 years): https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/16448 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/16448 Typing out 85 review comments and having them swallowed by a 500 response because the frontend thought that of course XHRs are always 200 OK, why wouldn't they be? is indescribably infuriating
      - 4y ago
seanconaty 4y ago
https://www.atlassian.com/software/bitbucket/pricing https://www.atlassian.com/software/bitbucket/pricing
- anonymoustrolol 4y ago
  Does anyone use Bitbucket? Do you like it? I struggle to see the use case unless you only need a repo, or do they have CI/CD now too?
  - PaywallBuster 4y ago
    They do have CI/CD Some companies look like they never moved away from Bitbucket And now that they have some half-assed CI/CD offering, _some_ companies are moving into it as the first CI/CD tool they've ever used
    - llamaLord 4y ago
      PM for Bitbucket pipelines here, my team of ~20 owns that feature E2W, would genuinely love to chat, share some stuff we're working on, and get feedback/thoughts. Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
  - xwowsersx 4y ago
    I use Bitbucket at $job. They do have CI/CD now, it's called Bitbucket Pipelines. It's not bad, not great. For better or worse, I always measure version control hosting against GitHub which is still the king in my opinion. There are so many little things that GH has which BB doesn't. When you add them all together, it's easy to see why you'd want to switch to GH or something similar. Examples: GH lets you write comments/feedback on a PR and then submit it (sort of like staging the comments) in one fell swoop. With BB, each comment triggers a notification to the PR author. GH has draft PRs. Debatable how useful these are, but people definitely like them on GH and that's not an option on BB. GH has built-in support for Mermaid in markdown, BB doesn't and won't ever. GH Actions generally seem more flexible. BB, for example, doesn't let you call a custom "Pipe" when using your own Mac OS runner in BB Pipelines — something you need to do if you want to build Apple projects — which is just a strange and frustrating limitation. There are so many other things. In general, BB is just slow and janky as almost all Atlassian products are. Every time you click to complete or submit something, you just experience slowness. I'd switch to GH in a minute if we could, but our team already uses so much other Atlassian crap that we're kind of stuck with it at the moment.
geenat 4y ago
Gitea on SQLite for the ultimate ease of setup and maintenance. Version 19 is killer- Trello style image previews on issue cards / kanban board! Also import/export to github / gitlab at any time.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Has too many roots in China for me to ever even think about putting my source code on it.
- asah 4y ago
  Does it support github actions? To me, that's the killer feature...
  - geenat 4y ago
    Github actions are supported in Gitea 19, yes.
    - e12e 4y ago
      Wow, that's quite impressive: https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/ https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/ Looks like there's still more work planned, though: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539 This is interesting - as I understand it gitea supports work flows from the github marketplace - and I had just made a note to try and figure out how the ruby/setup-ruby[1] action actually works/is implemented - and from the looks/claims here - I guess it should just work with gitea? [1] https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby
    - mdaniel 4y ago
      https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/integrations/ https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/integrations/ says "If you're looking for CI/CD look at this awesome list [and good luck]": https://gitea.com/gitea/awesome-gitea#user-content-devops https://gitea.com/gitea/awesome-gitea#user-content-devops As far as "Github actions are supported", I seem to recall they're using "act" for that and this issue appears to match my recollection, as well as my experience with act being fine for hello-world but 100% absolutely not a replacement for a formal CI/CD system: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539#issuecomment-1448888850 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539#issuecomment-... I will concede I have not tried keeping up with their fork <https://gitea.com/gitea/act https://gitea.com/gitea/act> so maybe they cured all its ills
pastor_bob 4y ago
Caused the stock price to jump 20% over the last hour?[0] OP, if only you bought some calls instead of informing HN, you would have been rich. [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTLB/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTLB/
- jonas-w 4y ago
  Can someone explain to me why it jumped *that much*?
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    Is it surprising? They increased the price of their primary product by 30% - so it should follow that their revenue should also increase by some similar factor (modulo whatever percentage of revenue is from CI minutes or the other plans which didn't increase in price, like - notably - the enterprise plan which is still $99). Based on their last Quarterly Earnings report [0], it looks like subscription revenue is on the order of 10:1 compared to other revenue. [0] https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gitlab-reports-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2023-financial-results https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/git...
    - jonas-w 4y ago
      Ah okay that makes sense, thanks. I connected it more with "people will stop paying gitlab money" instead of "gitlab will make more money"
lazypenguin 4y ago
Interesting turn of events. For my team of about 10 users (5 just for access to wiki/issues) we recently moved to GitHub. When Gitlab first announced the price changes, annual billing and user restrictions on Gitlab.com we reluctantly went to self-hosted. Over time we got tired of the maintenance and the system was just slowly coming to a crawl. We switched to GitHub and we went from freeloaders on Gitlab to paying customers simply because they had a price appropriate tier for our team ($4/user vs. $19/user and now $29/user). Actually we use LFS aggressively which can get pricey on GitHub but I’m happy to pay for usage rather than some arbitrary per user number. If I add a user who just needs access to issue board I have to pay $348 upfront with Gitlab! Multiply that by factors of 10 and the numbers creep up. Peanuts for an established business with revenue but not for a boot strapped venture or hobby project. Strong signals who Gitlab’s target market is.
- brightball 4y ago
  Personally, I'm willing to pay for it just to keep everything in one system. Gitlab's aim seems to be to replace the mashup of multiple 3rd party systems into a central place for the company. The associated costs of each one of those systems, user management, etc that go with them adds up. Plus, you have to consider any per-user pricing as part of your cost per employee. If you're paying somebody a salary who's accessing a system where they interact with the rest of the company...$29 is not a big deal when lumped in with the salary, benefits, taxes, etc. If you're a few college students working in your spare time with no income, sure it's a problem. But even then Gitlab gives away plenty on the free tier and you can each setup a runner on your own laptops to avoid paying for CI minutes. IMO, this pricing is very reasonable considering the variable quality of different integrated systems out there.
  - numbsafari 4y ago
    I would be fine with this if the users who are not code oriented could have a purpose built UX, instead of having to face down all of the code stuff.
    - jacobr1 4y ago
seanconaty 4y ago
https://sourcehut.org/pricing/ https://sourcehut.org/pricing/
- dist1ll 4y ago
  https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurrency/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    Yeah, I can't in good faith recommend sourcehut anymore given their policies.
    - turblety 4y ago
      Yeah, same. I could never use a service that will just arbitary ban any legal and legit project type, just because of the owners bias.
    - ajkjk 4y ago
      Oh, I kinda like it. They took a moral stance on something (good), explained it well (good) and made it easy to offboard (good).
- kodah 4y ago
  Personally I've read enough blog posts off that domain to not click that link. YMMV.
- neilv 4y ago
  How do people like sourcehut.org for open source projects? For startups? For established "enterprise"? I overall like GitLab for startups, especially since I can do my own flavor of Kanban with the scoped labels feature of their Premium account. So I'm leaning towards also moving my personal open source to gitlab.com, just to simplify. I would've already moved, but gitlab.com's CloudFlare setup is blocking my Firefox. And a couple times now GitLab has changed the pricing dramatically, and I won't like surprises like that after I've invested many hours to move there.
impulser_ 4y ago
What did people expect from using a product from a public company burning massive amounts of money?
- geodel 4y ago
  Well, gitlab seems to be the "Avocado Toast" of Code/Pipeline hosting. So I guess users maybe fine or in fact happy here.
a13n 4y ago
It's interesting to me that Hacker News's impression of this change is basically: > Gitlab has switched into the "squeeze money from customers phase". It is time to leave. ...while the stock market's impression of this change is "wow this company is worth an extra 20% now".
- tiffanyh 4y ago
  This seem more like Wallstreet is reacting to a company projecting to increase revenues by 52% (from $19->$29) YoY.
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    That only sounds plausible if 100% of your revenue comes from GitLab Premium customers.
    - tiffanyh 4y ago
      Fair point, though their stock price didn't go up by 52%. Seems like Wallstreet is pricing in the fact this doesn't effect all plans.
    - sScTE9qEMCxEk34 4y ago
      I expect it's close, honestly. I dunno who's paying $100/month for what GitHub offers (but on a platform that all your devs already know) for $20/month...
    - chatmasta 4y ago
      The ratio is on the order of 10:1 subscription vs. licensing (self-hosted?) and "other," according to their most recent QE report [0]. But I'm curious how many subscribers they have on the Enterprise $99/user plan. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a fairly low number of organizations (under 100), especially since those organizations have the option to self-host GitLab at much lower cost. [0] https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gitlab-reports-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2023-financial-results https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/git...
geenat 4y ago
Gitea on SQLite for the ultimate ease of setup and maintenance. Version 19 is killer- Trello style image previews on issue cards / kanban board. Github actions! Also import / export from github / gitlab at any time.
deng 4y ago
Premium user here with ~400 seats. We will definitely have to think about moving. This just makes no sense at all. At least there's a transition phase with 24$, but that's already stretching it. Yes, they are adding features nobody asked for like crazy, just to be able to check more boxes in some feature matrix. Meanwhile, absolute basic stuff is simply not working or buggy as hell. Whenever I encounter a new quirk, I usually google for it and almost always find some years-old issue that is rotting away. "Advanced" search is completely useless as you can't really search for code. The whole CI/CD stuff completely falls apart once you scale things up. Just creating the pipeline takes literally minutes. When running a pipeline, I have to reload 10 times until I finally see the job variables (at least that one will FINALLY be fixed in 15.9). No good overview of what runners are busy with, no priority on runners, although why am I complaining about stuff like that when you can't even FILTER JOBS BY NAME. And don't get me started on the self-hosting stuff... There was a time when GitLab was superior to GitHub. This is clearly no longer the case. Not a good time to increase prices.
- styles 4y ago
  I have the exact same experience.
- freedomben 4y ago
  I've been a huge fan of Gitlab in the past, first for their open source nature and second because I felt it was a great product. Their CI stuff was miles ahead of everybody else and was a no brainer. Their main UX was (IMHO) a bit inferior to Github's, but once you learned it it was perfectly acceptable. It was sometimes very slow, but it was tolerable. But I have to agree with you. The pricing is outrageous. It was already way over-priced, now it is just insane. They shot themselves in the foot hard by making you buy all the things instead of some a la carte (which made incremental adoption highly expensive), and it is impossible to make a business case for adopting Gitlab. In addition Gitlab has gotten slower and less usable. I still have warm feelings for Gitlab so I hope they will hear this plea: Please, make your prices more competitive and reasonable and don't force an "all or nothing" scenario because you're gonna lose a lot more than you win.
  - 4y ago
misnome 4y ago
> As GitLab’s first price increase in more than five years This seems... wrong. I swear that we were forced into a more expensive plan in the past couple of years; did they discontinue some middle plan that "Technically" means that this isn't a price increase? Pretty shitty gaslighting, if (if!) that is the case.
- the_jeremy 4y ago
  In 2021[0], GitLab removed the lowest paid tier of $4/user, meaning you either paid $19/user or nothing. In 20222[1], GitLab removed features from the free tier. [0]: https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/27/gitlab_removes_starter_tier/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/27/gitlab_removes_starte... [1]: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/03/24/efficient-free-tier/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/03/24/efficient-free-tier...
  - misnome 4y ago
    Right. That strikes me… as a price increase.
yumraj 4y ago
I find it interesting that several companies are enacting policies to extract more revenue from customers in this economy via price increases or policy changes. I feel that this may force customers who are looking to reduce cost leave respective platforms resulting in a negative impact on the revenue. Isn’t the best strategy in an economic situation such as this to hold pricing and give one less reason for customers to drop off? At least that is what I’d do.
- sverhagen 4y ago
  I'm sure they have spreadsheets and math to back this up, and I'm going to wager that they decided that less customers in a higher tier is beneficial. The smaller customer base is not only made up for by the higher prices, but also the lesser overall customer acquisition costs and the typical lower cost to support this smaller group of customers, lots of whom may have staff of their own to field some of the basic support questions, before hitting up GitLab's support team. But it _does_ make me sad that there's just no step in-between. I don't need to be a complete free-loader, but you quickly exceed the 5-user limit of the Free plan, after which $12x12=$348 per user/year is a steep jump up, for which I wish (and have pleaded with them) there to be an intermediate option.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  And this is when Microsoft swoops in at the executive level and starts offering massive 1/2 year volume discounts including freebees like GitHub. Easy sell... or so I've heard.
  - mahkeiro 4y ago
    Yes in our company higher management is asking us to move from gitlab to github because MS provided them a good discount.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- Atlas22 4y ago
2bluesc 4y ago
Ironically, the IPv4 address for gitlab.com in my region is on a blocklist this morning[0]: $ drill -Q @1.1.1.1 gitlab.com 172.65.251.78 $ drill -Q @8.8.8.8 gitlab.com 172.65.251.78 $ curl -s https://iplists.firehol.org/files/firehol_level3.netset | grep 172.65.251.78 172.65.251.78 [0] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/production/-/issues/6263#note_1299271955 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/production/-/issues/6...
- T4cC0re 4y ago
  I have raised this issue internally and we will contact our vendor to work with them on having those IPs removed from the block list. Those IPs are only in use by us, so blocks targeting other Cloudflare properties should not have affected our IP.
- jonas-w 4y ago
  Well that is a cloudflare ip address. These IPs get used by an enourmous amount of different websites. Blocking cloudflare IP adresses is very useless, it will block access to many other sites and the page that they wanted to block has probably another IP address by now/for someone on the other side of the world.
bootloop 4y ago
Personal anecdote: I recently looked at the Gitlab pricing / model, in particular for on-premise hosting, as we came across Gitlab booth at a show. I wasn't very happy with our solution so an alternative would have been really welcome. I was so confused by the many redirects and feature lists on the page that we decided to ask a representative there to explain it to us instead. If I remember correctly the outcome was that if we host it ourselves we pay 100$/person/month. What surprised me was how surprised the representative was that there is absolutely no way I would be able to convince the CFO to go from 0 to 100$/person a month for a bit of convenience. Apparently, quote: There are many who are happy to pay that. - WHO AND WHY?
- izzy5alive 4y ago
  Granted we are a large company but we went from GitLab's Premium to the Ultimate. The Ultimate was the $100/month per. We found the aggregate cost of the solutions, maintenance, infra, time, etc., that made up what Ultimate offered was far in excess of we were going to have to do. BTW, they will likely negotiate with you if you like the capability but not the cost. Per the other users comment, if its self hosted, Gitlab should be more flexible with the pricing. My 2 cents. :)
- sScTE9qEMCxEk34 4y ago
  It doesn't even matter if you self-host or not. It's the same price either way. I have the same question as you.
Centigonal 4y ago
Even if they lose 30% of their premium customers as a result of this change, they still come out ahead on revenue (and even further ahead on earnings, given the smaller userbase needed to maintain that revenue). Not great for new premium user acquisition though.
crossroadsguy 4y ago
I have often wondered why people use things like Jira, Gitlab, Confluence etc when there are better, simpler, cleaner, and more stable alternatives are available. I always assumed it must be that these are much cheaper than the alternative. Or a compliance need to install things and keep data on your own infrastructure.
- dijit 4y ago
  gitlab is pretty nice mostly because of the CI system and runners, the groupings of things, the permissions (deploy tokens etc;) and the way it handles merge requests. Jira is used mostly because it's "okay" at doing things the agile way, it's impressive how few things actually have the concept of a backlog or sprints (Asana for instance has neither despite costing 4x as much). I can't honestly find a decent replacement for confluence that would allow non-techs to also write documents. :\ I would hate myself for saying all this 4 years ago, but unfortunately I am now in a position where I have the ability to inflict my personal tool choices on people and these are the least bad options sadly.
rpep 4y ago
Premium is already expensive considering that GitHub enterprise is $40/user/month and has many more features. I’ve been following a number of open tickets and certain things I consider pretty basic features aren’t possible at the moment. You can’t block merges that aren’t up to date with the target branch, and merge trains are “too clever” a way of doing that. You can’t block people from being able to reveal secrets in the CI system.
apple4ever 4y ago
Their pricing is so out of whack. I'd love to give them money at work and at home, but their pricing makes it unaffordable.

156 points by dijit 4y ago

The pricing of Gitlab already got pretty insane on the upper tiers for a large business. I regret ever advocating for them with how expensive they are becoming.

rhaway84773 4y ago
For me it was less the increase in price, what was bad enough, and more the shifting of functionality to higher tiers and basically the evisceration of the open source version.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jrochkind1 4y ago

The announcement: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/03/02/gitlab-premium-update/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/03/02/gitlab-premium-upda...

raro11 4y ago

kthnxbye We were contemplating going to GitHub. This sealed the deal. > As GitLab’s first price increase in more than five years How long ago did they force Bronze users to their "Premium? Feels like less than two years ago.

zeeZ 4y ago
I still have the email > Effective January 26, 2021, GitLab has phased out the GitLab Bronze/Starter subscription tier.

pid-1 4y ago

> As GitLab’s first price increase in more than five years, this new pricing for GitLab Premium reflects the evolution of GitLab from source control and CI to the most comprehensive DevSecOps Platform. Over the past five years, GitLab Premium added more than 400 features, leading to improved cycle times, enhanced developer experience, and better collaboration for our customers As a paying customer, I don't use many (most?) of those 400 new features. Meanwhile, stuff that could be game-changing for me like making gitlab-runner easier to deploy or local pipeline testing are being kicked down the road since forever. Search still sucks. There is no cheap licensing for read only, non developer folks. That's it, I'm moving on. Luckly I have a whole year before renewing our licenses.

crote 4y ago
I agree. GitLab was arguably a better product for a while back when GitHub didn't even have integrated CI, but at this point most of the features they are adding just feel pointless to me. I primarily just want a place to store my code, track issues, and run automated tests. GitLab was already a bit of a tricky sell due to most open source code being on Github, but now it is either $48 / year for Github or $348 for GitLab. The math just isn't mathing.
- anonymoustrolol 4y ago
  Are you getting $48/year on Github? I'm on the sticker rate of $49/month. Doh!
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    https://github.com/pricing https://github.com/pricing I see only 2 non free options. $48/yr and $231/yr for enterprise. Why would you be paying ~$600/yr when the enterprise option is less than $250?

re-thc 4y ago

Free tiers have already been reduced. There are already new ways to make $$$ e.g. the faster runners. What justifies the price increase? Sure you have new features but you also have better scaling from more customers. Meanwhile is this a hint for Github to also increase prices? Hm.

crote 4y ago
It was already $228 / year for GitLab vs $48 / year for Github. This rate hike raises it to $348 vs $48. I don't think anyone at Github is currently too worried about prices.
- re-thc 4y ago
  From my experiences med-large organisations wanted SSO/SAML as a minimum, which is either Gitlab premium or Github enterprise.

zeeZ 4y ago

I think this change does a great job to further solidify the Teams plan for smaller orgs. At GitHub.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
Agreed. GitHub is the only one I'd pay for if I had to. They're just too far ahead of everyone else.

kdmytro 4y ago

I am a former Starter subscriber. This will be the second time they bump the price for my team.

raro11 4y ago

Discussed at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996382

remram 4y ago
Sounds like @dang should merge, those are exact duplicates

josephcsible 4y ago

Does GitLab still reject community PRs to their open-source core that would compete with their paid offerings?

speedgoose 4y ago
That would be weird of them to merge them no ? The community can maintain a fork, but I wouldn’t except any company to maintain code that compete with their business model.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  It's weird how you paint such a weird thing as a normal thing? I'd expect any open source focused company* to merge beneficial changes. You're essentially saying their business model is not just keeping things closed source but running interference on open source... * Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration. - https://about.gitlab.com/company/ https://about.gitlab.com/company/
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    They're not really open source, they're open core which is a little different. Sure, their core's license is open source compatible, but their philosophy is definitely more about stratifying between free and paid.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say Gitlab is an open source company, which is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. Does a mission statement starting with "Since the beginning, we've been firm believers in remote work, open source, DevOps, and iteration" mean they're focused on open source or not?
      - satvikpendem 4y ago

DarkNova6 4y ago

I would instantly subscribe if there was a 10$ subscription per month. I don't need all of the premium features. A simple Basic+ with more speed and storage would already be a fine deal.

mdaniel 4y ago
Out of curiosity, have you looked at some of the other hosted copies of GitLab? They have "marketplace" listings in AWS, Azure, and GCP, and I'd bet other cloud providers have a similar "click button, get GitLab" setup. This train of thought presupposes that the $10 you want to pay is to have someone else run the compute, "s3", database, and runners for you, versus "self-hosting"
- DarkNova6 4y ago
  my intention was to back the project and help further development of Gitlab. I don't strictly "need" more features for my private projects. But you have a great recommendation regardless, thank you

dijit 4y ago

I have been a big fan of gitlab and have definitely promoted its use in the organisations I have worked (putting a $ amount on it, I'm probably responsible for $30,000/y in their revenue, which doesn't sound like a lot now that I'm typing it out). But honestly I'm extremely displeased with this. I guess nobody is ever happy to pay more, but gitlab was already more expensive than github. More staggering is that there's no discount pricing for self-hosting your gitlab instance, so you may as well use Gitlab's resources on the SaaS platform, which is more expensive for gitlab themselves -- yes, annoyingly, storage over a certain volume is an additional cost, but you'd pay it anyway if you self-host, so whatever. I know there's a lot of features that I don't use and that I begrudge paying for, just like everyone else (who probably have a different set of things), and I know the cost is probably trying to be just under the cost to switch away, but 52% for features I don't care about mostly is steep. This is also the second increase in 2 years, even though marketing says otherwise, because "Starter" and "Bronze" no longer exists and was absurdly cheaper than Premium. ($4/u/m) ---- Look: Going from $4 to $29 per user in 2 years is terrifying as a person who is now writing checks on behalf of my company. For context, Perforce is basically a market leader in Gamedev (and as a consequence using gitlab for me is a fight against normality) and it's considered "too expensive" (to the point google made their own) but a necessary evil because there's no alternative at $41,25/u/m So my users who use gitlab and perforce (everyone using gitlab is also using perforce) is now going to be $70+. If you are balking at the cost of hosting, give us a cheaper licensing plan for self-hosting. - the idea that CODEOWNERS, protected branches and approval rules is worth $29 per user (even if they're non-coders!) is just absurd.

asdajksah2123 4y ago
Promoting Gitlab was the biggest mistake I made. Every team I promoted them to has been bitten time and again by their licensing, feature, and pricing changes. Many other services I've promoted have also seen price changes, etc. but I've never felt genuinely frustrated with the changes in any of those like I have with Gitlab.
bink 4y ago
I mentioned this in the other thread, but the excuse vendors often use for not offering a self-hosting discount is that their support costs are often much higher for self-hosted customers. I've never been provided direct evidence of this, but that's what they say.

vorpalhex 4y ago

I've generally moved from Gitlab to Gitea + Drone. Gitlab has switched into the "squeeze money from customers phase". It is time to leave.

number6 4y ago
I selfhost gitlab for years now. My preffered road.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  If you need the features in the Premium offering, you still have to purchase licensing.
- dijit 4y ago
  There's only a couple of missing features (for me, anyway) if you self host compared to the premium licensed self-hosted version (which, insanely, is the same price as the SaaS product!): * CODEOWNERS EDIT: Not true anymore! -- ~ * Protected branches (IE; preventing people committing to master/main) ~ * Approval Rules in merge requests * Merge trains (auto-merging if another merge request depends on another). * Viewing Jira issues in Gitlab
  - mantas 4y ago
    Protected branches is no longer premium-only.
  - number6 4y ago
    Merge trains would be nice, protected branches definitely exist. Never missed the other features tbh
  - matthew-wegner 4y ago
    I did a quick Slack bot that messages a channel with open merge requests every morning. I really wanted to show the approval status, too, just as a reminder for someone to go "oh, that's approved, I should go merge". But the entire approval-related API fields are deliberately removed on free tier, not just the web UI "require approval" functionality. I found this to be pretty heavy handed, especially for a self-hosted instance.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

> Over the past five years, GitLab Premium added more than 400 features, leading to improved cycle times, enhanced developer experience, and better collaboration for our customers. Great; now instead of half-baked box-checking features just pulling dev time away from making their features fully functional, they're also used to justify making the product half again as expensive. Now I wonder: Does GitLab actually believe that their features are 5-8x as valuable as GitHub, or is it just a cash grab?

kadomony 4y ago
I suspect it's pressure from investors to increase profit that's going to backfire and lead to more layoffs and migration to GitHub.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Which is funny because I know a lot of people moved to GitLab after GitHub was acquired by Microsoft.
  - geodel 4y ago
    I mean those folks were taking a principled stand. I am sure they wouldn't mind at all paying a few bucks extra now.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
      Some of it was probably principle, but plenty of it was just people who had been burned by MS before.
      - taftster 4y ago
        Right. But the irony is, normally compared to how bungled Microsoft acquisitions are, it seems Github is allowed to continue mostly independent without a lot of oversight? At this point, though still skeptical, it seems to me that Github is not quite beholden to Microsoft and is actually innovating and adding new value. I totally jumped to Gitlab when the acquisition happened and recommended it to everyone. But now I'm back to thinking Github is the best choice. The biggest thing for me was free private repositories, which I believe Gitlab forced Github to put into place due to competition. Github has been on its way back up in my evaluation ever sense.

debacle 4y ago

Gitlab's pull request functionality is inferior to both Github and Teams. We use them because their Kanban is nice and they're a bit more "one stop shop" than Github, but this pricing change doesn't make sense for us.

jrochkind1 4y ago
> We use them because their Kanban is nice Did you notice Github's improvements to "projects" over the past couple years? I feel like they missed doing a big announcement, cause it was like gradually implemented as a "beta" and then slowly filled in. But it's much better kanban now. Might still not be as good as gitlab's, I couldn't say.
mdaniel 4y ago
I don't work for GL but I'd be interested to hear what you think makes the GL pull request functionality inferior (my guess is you're going to say the number of "actions" available that target the GH API but it's just a guess)
- debacle 4y ago
  Large PRs are buggy, the flow is less intuitive, and in certain instances the PR UI just "breaks" and you need to refresh the page. Sometimes diffs are bad (I would bet github uses diff -ow, or something similar) and in general PRs are a drag.
  - mdaniel 4y ago
    Thank you. I've been following these family of bugs for what feels like years (although this specific one has _only_ been open 6 years): https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/16448 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/16448 Typing out 85 review comments and having them swallowed by a 500 response because the frontend thought that of course XHRs are always 200 OK, why wouldn't they be? is indescribably infuriating
    - 4y ago

seanconaty 4y ago

https://www.atlassian.com/software/bitbucket/pricing https://www.atlassian.com/software/bitbucket/pricing

anonymoustrolol 4y ago
Does anyone use Bitbucket? Do you like it? I struggle to see the use case unless you only need a repo, or do they have CI/CD now too?
- PaywallBuster 4y ago
  They do have CI/CD Some companies look like they never moved away from Bitbucket And now that they have some half-assed CI/CD offering, _some_ companies are moving into it as the first CI/CD tool they've ever used
  - llamaLord 4y ago
    PM for Bitbucket pipelines here, my team of ~20 owns that feature E2W, would genuinely love to chat, share some stuff we're working on, and get feedback/thoughts. Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
- xwowsersx 4y ago
  I use Bitbucket at $job. They do have CI/CD now, it's called Bitbucket Pipelines. It's not bad, not great. For better or worse, I always measure version control hosting against GitHub which is still the king in my opinion. There are so many little things that GH has which BB doesn't. When you add them all together, it's easy to see why you'd want to switch to GH or something similar. Examples: GH lets you write comments/feedback on a PR and then submit it (sort of like staging the comments) in one fell swoop. With BB, each comment triggers a notification to the PR author. GH has draft PRs. Debatable how useful these are, but people definitely like them on GH and that's not an option on BB. GH has built-in support for Mermaid in markdown, BB doesn't and won't ever. GH Actions generally seem more flexible. BB, for example, doesn't let you call a custom "Pipe" when using your own Mac OS runner in BB Pipelines — something you need to do if you want to build Apple projects — which is just a strange and frustrating limitation. There are so many other things. In general, BB is just slow and janky as almost all Atlassian products are. Every time you click to complete or submit something, you just experience slowness. I'd switch to GH in a minute if we could, but our team already uses so much other Atlassian crap that we're kind of stuck with it at the moment.

geenat 4y ago

Gitea on SQLite for the ultimate ease of setup and maintenance. Version 19 is killer- Trello style image previews on issue cards / kanban board! Also import/export to github / gitlab at any time.

bioemerl 4y ago
Has too many roots in China for me to ever even think about putting my source code on it.
asah 4y ago
Does it support github actions? To me, that's the killer feature...
- geenat 4y ago
  Github actions are supported in Gitea 19, yes.
  - e12e 4y ago
    Wow, that's quite impressive: https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/ https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/ Looks like there's still more work planned, though: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539 This is interesting - as I understand it gitea supports work flows from the github marketplace - and I had just made a note to try and figure out how the ruby/setup-ruby[1] action actually works/is implemented - and from the looks/claims here - I guess it should just work with gitea? [1] https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby
  - mdaniel 4y ago
    https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/integrations/ https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/integrations/ says "If you're looking for CI/CD look at this awesome list [and good luck]": https://gitea.com/gitea/awesome-gitea#user-content-devops https://gitea.com/gitea/awesome-gitea#user-content-devops As far as "Github actions are supported", I seem to recall they're using "act" for that and this issue appears to match my recollection, as well as my experience with act being fine for hello-world but 100% absolutely not a replacement for a formal CI/CD system: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539#issuecomment-1448888850 https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539#issuecomment-... I will concede I have not tried keeping up with their fork <https://gitea.com/gitea/act https://gitea.com/gitea/act> so maybe they cured all its ills

pastor_bob 4y ago

Caused the stock price to jump 20% over the last hour?[0] OP, if only you bought some calls instead of informing HN, you would have been rich. [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTLB/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTLB/

jonas-w 4y ago
Can someone explain to me why it jumped *that much*?
- chatmasta 4y ago
  Is it surprising? They increased the price of their primary product by 30% - so it should follow that their revenue should also increase by some similar factor (modulo whatever percentage of revenue is from CI minutes or the other plans which didn't increase in price, like - notably - the enterprise plan which is still $99). Based on their last Quarterly Earnings report [0], it looks like subscription revenue is on the order of 10:1 compared to other revenue. [0] https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gitlab-reports-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2023-financial-results https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/git...
  - jonas-w 4y ago
    Ah okay that makes sense, thanks. I connected it more with "people will stop paying gitlab money" instead of "gitlab will make more money"

lazypenguin 4y ago

Interesting turn of events. For my team of about 10 users (5 just for access to wiki/issues) we recently moved to GitHub. When Gitlab first announced the price changes, annual billing and user restrictions on Gitlab.com we reluctantly went to self-hosted. Over time we got tired of the maintenance and the system was just slowly coming to a crawl. We switched to GitHub and we went from freeloaders on Gitlab to paying customers simply because they had a price appropriate tier for our team ($4/user vs. $19/user and now $29/user). Actually we use LFS aggressively which can get pricey on GitHub but I’m happy to pay for usage rather than some arbitrary per user number. If I add a user who just needs access to issue board I have to pay $348 upfront with Gitlab! Multiply that by factors of 10 and the numbers creep up. Peanuts for an established business with revenue but not for a boot strapped venture or hobby project. Strong signals who Gitlab’s target market is.

brightball 4y ago
Personally, I'm willing to pay for it just to keep everything in one system. Gitlab's aim seems to be to replace the mashup of multiple 3rd party systems into a central place for the company. The associated costs of each one of those systems, user management, etc that go with them adds up. Plus, you have to consider any per-user pricing as part of your cost per employee. If you're paying somebody a salary who's accessing a system where they interact with the rest of the company...$29 is not a big deal when lumped in with the salary, benefits, taxes, etc. If you're a few college students working in your spare time with no income, sure it's a problem. But even then Gitlab gives away plenty on the free tier and you can each setup a runner on your own laptops to avoid paying for CI minutes. IMO, this pricing is very reasonable considering the variable quality of different integrated systems out there.
- numbsafari 4y ago
  I would be fine with this if the users who are not code oriented could have a purpose built UX, instead of having to face down all of the code stuff.
  - jacobr1 4y ago

seanconaty 4y ago

https://sourcehut.org/pricing/ https://sourcehut.org/pricing/

dist1ll 4y ago
https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurrency/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  Yeah, I can't in good faith recommend sourcehut anymore given their policies.
  - turblety 4y ago
    Yeah, same. I could never use a service that will just arbitary ban any legal and legit project type, just because of the owners bias.
  - ajkjk 4y ago
    Oh, I kinda like it. They took a moral stance on something (good), explained it well (good) and made it easy to offboard (good).
kodah 4y ago
Personally I've read enough blog posts off that domain to not click that link. YMMV.
neilv 4y ago
How do people like sourcehut.org for open source projects? For startups? For established "enterprise"? I overall like GitLab for startups, especially since I can do my own flavor of Kanban with the scoped labels feature of their Premium account. So I'm leaning towards also moving my personal open source to gitlab.com, just to simplify. I would've already moved, but gitlab.com's CloudFlare setup is blocking my Firefox. And a couple times now GitLab has changed the pricing dramatically, and I won't like surprises like that after I've invested many hours to move there.

impulser_ 4y ago

What did people expect from using a product from a public company burning massive amounts of money?

geodel 4y ago
Well, gitlab seems to be the "Avocado Toast" of Code/Pipeline hosting. So I guess users maybe fine or in fact happy here.

a13n 4y ago

It's interesting to me that Hacker News's impression of this change is basically: > Gitlab has switched into the "squeeze money from customers phase". It is time to leave. ...while the stock market's impression of this change is "wow this company is worth an extra 20% now".

tiffanyh 4y ago
This seem more like Wallstreet is reacting to a company projecting to increase revenues by 52% (from $19->$29) YoY.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  That only sounds plausible if 100% of your revenue comes from GitLab Premium customers.
  - tiffanyh 4y ago
    Fair point, though their stock price didn't go up by 52%. Seems like Wallstreet is pricing in the fact this doesn't effect all plans.
  - sScTE9qEMCxEk34 4y ago
    I expect it's close, honestly. I dunno who's paying $100/month for what GitHub offers (but on a platform that all your devs already know) for $20/month...
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    The ratio is on the order of 10:1 subscription vs. licensing (self-hosted?) and "other," according to their most recent QE report [0]. But I'm curious how many subscribers they have on the Enterprise $99/user plan. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a fairly low number of organizations (under 100), especially since those organizations have the option to self-host GitLab at much lower cost. [0] https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gitlab-reports-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2023-financial-results https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/git...

geenat 4y ago

Gitea on SQLite for the ultimate ease of setup and maintenance. Version 19 is killer- Trello style image previews on issue cards / kanban board. Github actions! Also import / export from github / gitlab at any time.

deng 4y ago

Premium user here with ~400 seats. We will definitely have to think about moving. This just makes no sense at all. At least there's a transition phase with 24$, but that's already stretching it. Yes, they are adding features nobody asked for like crazy, just to be able to check more boxes in some feature matrix. Meanwhile, absolute basic stuff is simply not working or buggy as hell. Whenever I encounter a new quirk, I usually google for it and almost always find some years-old issue that is rotting away. "Advanced" search is completely useless as you can't really search for code. The whole CI/CD stuff completely falls apart once you scale things up. Just creating the pipeline takes literally minutes. When running a pipeline, I have to reload 10 times until I finally see the job variables (at least that one will FINALLY be fixed in 15.9). No good overview of what runners are busy with, no priority on runners, although why am I complaining about stuff like that when you can't even FILTER JOBS BY NAME. And don't get me started on the self-hosting stuff... There was a time when GitLab was superior to GitHub. This is clearly no longer the case. Not a good time to increase prices.

styles 4y ago
I have the exact same experience.
freedomben 4y ago
I've been a huge fan of Gitlab in the past, first for their open source nature and second because I felt it was a great product. Their CI stuff was miles ahead of everybody else and was a no brainer. Their main UX was (IMHO) a bit inferior to Github's, but once you learned it it was perfectly acceptable. It was sometimes very slow, but it was tolerable. But I have to agree with you. The pricing is outrageous. It was already way over-priced, now it is just insane. They shot themselves in the foot hard by making you buy all the things instead of some a la carte (which made incremental adoption highly expensive), and it is impossible to make a business case for adopting Gitlab. In addition Gitlab has gotten slower and less usable. I still have warm feelings for Gitlab so I hope they will hear this plea: Please, make your prices more competitive and reasonable and don't force an "all or nothing" scenario because you're gonna lose a lot more than you win.
- 4y ago

misnome 4y ago

> As GitLab’s first price increase in more than five years This seems... wrong. I swear that we were forced into a more expensive plan in the past couple of years; did they discontinue some middle plan that "Technically" means that this isn't a price increase? Pretty shitty gaslighting, if (if!) that is the case.

the_jeremy 4y ago
In 2021[0], GitLab removed the lowest paid tier of $4/user, meaning you either paid $19/user or nothing. In 20222[1], GitLab removed features from the free tier. [0]: https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/27/gitlab_removes_starter_tier/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/27/gitlab_removes_starte... [1]: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/03/24/efficient-free-tier/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/03/24/efficient-free-tier...
- misnome 4y ago
  Right. That strikes me… as a price increase.

yumraj 4y ago

I find it interesting that several companies are enacting policies to extract more revenue from customers in this economy via price increases or policy changes. I feel that this may force customers who are looking to reduce cost leave respective platforms resulting in a negative impact on the revenue. Isn’t the best strategy in an economic situation such as this to hold pricing and give one less reason for customers to drop off? At least that is what I’d do.

sverhagen 4y ago
I'm sure they have spreadsheets and math to back this up, and I'm going to wager that they decided that less customers in a higher tier is beneficial. The smaller customer base is not only made up for by the higher prices, but also the lesser overall customer acquisition costs and the typical lower cost to support this smaller group of customers, lots of whom may have staff of their own to field some of the basic support questions, before hitting up GitLab's support team. But it _does_ make me sad that there's just no step in-between. I don't need to be a complete free-loader, but you quickly exceed the 5-user limit of the Free plan, after which $12x12=$348 per user/year is a steep jump up, for which I wish (and have pleaded with them) there to be an intermediate option.
bastardoperator 4y ago
And this is when Microsoft swoops in at the executive level and starts offering massive 1/2 year volume discounts including freebees like GitHub. Easy sell... or so I've heard.
- mahkeiro 4y ago
  Yes in our company higher management is asking us to move from gitlab to github because MS provided them a good discount.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Atlas22 4y ago

2bluesc 4y ago

Ironically, the IPv4 address for gitlab.com in my region is on a blocklist this morning[0]: $ drill -Q @1.1.1.1 gitlab.com 172.65.251.78 $ drill -Q @8.8.8.8 gitlab.com 172.65.251.78 $ curl -s https://iplists.firehol.org/files/firehol_level3.netset | grep 172.65.251.78 172.65.251.78 [0] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/production/-/issues/6263#note_1299271955 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/production/-/issues/6...

T4cC0re 4y ago
I have raised this issue internally and we will contact our vendor to work with them on having those IPs removed from the block list. Those IPs are only in use by us, so blocks targeting other Cloudflare properties should not have affected our IP.
jonas-w 4y ago
Well that is a cloudflare ip address. These IPs get used by an enourmous amount of different websites. Blocking cloudflare IP adresses is very useless, it will block access to many other sites and the page that they wanted to block has probably another IP address by now/for someone on the other side of the world.

bootloop 4y ago

Personal anecdote: I recently looked at the Gitlab pricing / model, in particular for on-premise hosting, as we came across Gitlab booth at a show. I wasn't very happy with our solution so an alternative would have been really welcome. I was so confused by the many redirects and feature lists on the page that we decided to ask a representative there to explain it to us instead. If I remember correctly the outcome was that if we host it ourselves we pay 100$/person/month. What surprised me was how surprised the representative was that there is absolutely no way I would be able to convince the CFO to go from 0 to 100$/person a month for a bit of convenience. Apparently, quote: There are many who are happy to pay that. - WHO AND WHY?

izzy5alive 4y ago
Granted we are a large company but we went from GitLab's Premium to the Ultimate. The Ultimate was the $100/month per. We found the aggregate cost of the solutions, maintenance, infra, time, etc., that made up what Ultimate offered was far in excess of we were going to have to do. BTW, they will likely negotiate with you if you like the capability but not the cost. Per the other users comment, if its self hosted, Gitlab should be more flexible with the pricing. My 2 cents. :)
sScTE9qEMCxEk34 4y ago
It doesn't even matter if you self-host or not. It's the same price either way. I have the same question as you.

Centigonal 4y ago

Even if they lose 30% of their premium customers as a result of this change, they still come out ahead on revenue (and even further ahead on earnings, given the smaller userbase needed to maintain that revenue). Not great for new premium user acquisition though.

crossroadsguy 4y ago

I have often wondered why people use things like Jira, Gitlab, Confluence etc when there are better, simpler, cleaner, and more stable alternatives are available. I always assumed it must be that these are much cheaper than the alternative. Or a compliance need to install things and keep data on your own infrastructure.

dijit 4y ago
gitlab is pretty nice mostly because of the CI system and runners, the groupings of things, the permissions (deploy tokens etc;) and the way it handles merge requests. Jira is used mostly because it's "okay" at doing things the agile way, it's impressive how few things actually have the concept of a backlog or sprints (Asana for instance has neither despite costing 4x as much). I can't honestly find a decent replacement for confluence that would allow non-techs to also write documents. :\ I would hate myself for saying all this 4 years ago, but unfortunately I am now in a position where I have the ability to inflict my personal tool choices on people and these are the least bad options sadly.

rpep 4y ago

Premium is already expensive considering that GitHub enterprise is $40/user/month and has many more features. I’ve been following a number of open tickets and certain things I consider pretty basic features aren’t possible at the moment. You can’t block merges that aren’t up to date with the target branch, and merge trains are “too clever” a way of doing that. You can’t block people from being able to reveal secrets in the CI system.

apple4ever 4y ago

Their pricing is so out of whack. I'd love to give them money at work and at home, but their pricing makes it unaffordable.