4 ms·

Well. Just got an email from GitHub saying they'll be raising prices for Co Pilot. "To keep up with the way you use Copilot, we're transitioning to usage-base

Well. Just got an email from GitHub saying they'll be raising prices for Co Pilot. "To keep up with the way you use Copilot, we're transitioning to usage-based billing, and we want to give you enough time to prepare." Man, it was fun. Having my tokens subsidized by Microsoft. If the prices go up to much I guess I'll try Deepseek again.

cedws 6mo ago
Seems like a strong signal the money burning party is coming to a close. Nearly all AI companies have tightened their belts in the past month. Anthropic removed Claude Code from the Pro plan, Z.AI increased their prices, GitHub removed some Claude models from Copilot, now this. Also, Opus 4.7 seems like a model more intended to save Anthropic money than push the bar.
- linhns 6mo ago
  I believe Anthropic added CC back to the pro plan.
  - jLaForest 6mo ago
    the point is that they tipped their hand about where they want to go in the future. They are just A B testing to see how much it pissed off their customers
  - Computer0 6mo ago
    Now they just removed Opus.
    - jeroenhd 6mo ago
      I signed up over the weekend and still have access to Opus. I believe the AB test they were doing only removed Opus from a small percentage of users. Don't think I'll be renewing though. The usage limits are low enough that I don't think this is worth it. One complex prompt while Americans are awake will wipe out your alloted tokens it seems.
- 0xffff2 6mo ago
  >Opus 4.7 seems like a model more intended to save Anthropic money than push the bar. How so? By all accounts I've read so far it uses more tokens overall for roughly the same results.
  - kdheiwns 6mo ago
    If you're delivering the same results and charging the customer more/letting the customer use the product less, that's saving the company money.
    - brokensegue 6mo ago
      Their variable cost is (basically) the number of tokens. They increased that. I don't get how that saves them money
- captainbland 6mo ago
  Yeah, honestly it feels like this came faster than I was expecting. I thought we'd see another few years of reeling in with too-good-to-be-true prices to really lock in dependency but it feels like most companies have kind of a lot of wiggle room to back out of this still
- pythonaut_16 6mo ago
  > Seems like a strong signal the money burning party is coming to a close. One provider who was undercutting the market with non-standard billing model moving to a more standard billing and prices doesn't seem like that strong of a signal, other than that Copilot was underpriced. I don't disagree with your other points though.
  - ThunderSizzle 6mo ago
    It was the only clear model from a user's perspective. Sure, a request may not perform as expected, or end earlier than desired, but it was an agreed to cost that was clear on both sides: 1 enter press in a prompt window = 1 request. If they wanted to limit what a request can do via their harness, I'm sure they artificially could. I hate all of the other plans I've seen of here a "credit" or here's a "bucket of usage", and we pull an announced amount from it based on arbitrary info that can't be audited or proven, and most of shat is spent might be entirely useless anyway. Claude Code has a problem where 1 request could take a significant portion of your 5 hour window, and it's unclear why. It's much like SEO, where Google sometimes says things that might help, but it's just magic wand eaving hoping something works.
- darqis 6mo ago
  Anthropic has done no such thing. WTF is wrong with you people? HN used to be made up of industry people, but random uninformed comments
drumttocs8 6mo ago
It's amazing how much I was able to build for $40/mo- something that would have taken a team of 100 twice the time just a few years ago. Will always be grateful for the greed of trillion dollar corporations that subsidized me.
- c-hendricks 6mo ago
  I'm starting to see comments like this in a new light after using some primarily AI-coded apps the past few weeks. They are a lot like apps that were built by hundreds of developers/product people over years and years, in the worst ways. Inconsistent design patterns from page to page, half baked features, inconsistent documentation (but BOY is there ever a lot of it!), NIH ui component libraries that don't act like you'd expect. All that fun stuff. It's like they speedran the worst parts of enterprise apps.
  - satvikpendem 6mo ago
    True but they wouldn't have existed otherwise. If they're end user apps, users generally don't care about the code because they never see it.
    - c-hendricks 6mo ago
      Right, but the woes I mentioned don't actually mention code, it mentions the parts end users do interact with.
    - intrinsicallee 6mo ago
      Build more broken stuff seems to be the endgame of "move fast and break things". Like PCC building empty cities, numbers go up I guess. What a world. I want something else entirely but lots of people seem to be fine with this model.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 6mo ago
0xffff2 6mo ago
Link to the announcement for anyone else like me who hasn't gotten the email yet: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-copilot-is-moving-to-usage-based-billing/ https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-copilo... Not really sure why I would stick with Copilot after this, and increasing Sonnet from 1x to 9x for annual subscribers is highway fucking robbery. Very glad I didn't commit myself to an annual plan.
- malfist 6mo ago
  What does that mean? That copilot users can use 1/9th of their prior usage of Sonnet?
  - moontear 6mo ago
    Not quite. Premium models have different type of multipliers applied. The multiplier decides how many PRUs (premium request units or tokens) are used. These PRUs are replaced with different units with this announcement but the methodology remains the same: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/billing/copilot-requests#model-multipliers https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/billing/copilot-... Sometimes the multiplier increase is significant like for Claude Opus 4.6 from 3x to 27x (https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/copilot-billing/models-and-pricing#model-multipliers-for-annual-copilot-pro-and-copilot-pro-subscribers https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/copilot-billing...), meaning using that model will use up a lot more „tokens“ (whatever the new word for it is)
  - 0xffff2 6mo ago
    Contrary to the other reply, I'm going to say yes, that's exactly what it means. For Github Copilot users with annual plans that are grandfathered in to per-prompt rather than per-token pricing, Github is increasing the cost of Sonnet from 1 "premium request" per Sonnet prompt to 9, thus meaning that those users will be able to submit 1/9th the number of prompts per month before incurring additional usage charges. For all practical purposes, this is a straightforward 9x increase in price.
- 999900000999 6mo ago
dang 6mo ago
(This was originally posted to Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921248, but in a perhaps-futile effort to keep the discussions partitioned, Maxwell's demon will move it to the Copilot pricing thread.)

cedws 6mo ago

Seems like a strong signal the money burning party is coming to a close. Nearly all AI companies have tightened their belts in the past month. Anthropic removed Claude Code from the Pro plan, Z.AI increased their prices, GitHub removed some Claude models from Copilot, now this. Also, Opus 4.7 seems like a model more intended to save Anthropic money than push the bar.

linhns 6mo ago
I believe Anthropic added CC back to the pro plan.
- jLaForest 6mo ago
  the point is that they tipped their hand about where they want to go in the future. They are just A B testing to see how much it pissed off their customers
- Computer0 6mo ago
  Now they just removed Opus.
  - jeroenhd 6mo ago
    I signed up over the weekend and still have access to Opus. I believe the AB test they were doing only removed Opus from a small percentage of users. Don't think I'll be renewing though. The usage limits are low enough that I don't think this is worth it. One complex prompt while Americans are awake will wipe out your alloted tokens it seems.
0xffff2 6mo ago
>Opus 4.7 seems like a model more intended to save Anthropic money than push the bar. How so? By all accounts I've read so far it uses more tokens overall for roughly the same results.
- kdheiwns 6mo ago
  If you're delivering the same results and charging the customer more/letting the customer use the product less, that's saving the company money.
  - brokensegue 6mo ago
    Their variable cost is (basically) the number of tokens. They increased that. I don't get how that saves them money
captainbland 6mo ago
Yeah, honestly it feels like this came faster than I was expecting. I thought we'd see another few years of reeling in with too-good-to-be-true prices to really lock in dependency but it feels like most companies have kind of a lot of wiggle room to back out of this still
pythonaut_16 6mo ago
> Seems like a strong signal the money burning party is coming to a close. One provider who was undercutting the market with non-standard billing model moving to a more standard billing and prices doesn't seem like that strong of a signal, other than that Copilot was underpriced. I don't disagree with your other points though.
- ThunderSizzle 6mo ago
  It was the only clear model from a user's perspective. Sure, a request may not perform as expected, or end earlier than desired, but it was an agreed to cost that was clear on both sides: 1 enter press in a prompt window = 1 request. If they wanted to limit what a request can do via their harness, I'm sure they artificially could. I hate all of the other plans I've seen of here a "credit" or here's a "bucket of usage", and we pull an announced amount from it based on arbitrary info that can't be audited or proven, and most of shat is spent might be entirely useless anyway. Claude Code has a problem where 1 request could take a significant portion of your 5 hour window, and it's unclear why. It's much like SEO, where Google sometimes says things that might help, but it's just magic wand eaving hoping something works.
darqis 6mo ago
Anthropic has done no such thing. WTF is wrong with you people? HN used to be made up of industry people, but random uninformed comments

drumttocs8 6mo ago

It's amazing how much I was able to build for $40/mo- something that would have taken a team of 100 twice the time just a few years ago. Will always be grateful for the greed of trillion dollar corporations that subsidized me.

c-hendricks 6mo ago
I'm starting to see comments like this in a new light after using some primarily AI-coded apps the past few weeks. They are a lot like apps that were built by hundreds of developers/product people over years and years, in the worst ways. Inconsistent design patterns from page to page, half baked features, inconsistent documentation (but BOY is there ever a lot of it!), NIH ui component libraries that don't act like you'd expect. All that fun stuff. It's like they speedran the worst parts of enterprise apps.
- satvikpendem 6mo ago
  True but they wouldn't have existed otherwise. If they're end user apps, users generally don't care about the code because they never see it.
  - c-hendricks 6mo ago
    Right, but the woes I mentioned don't actually mention code, it mentions the parts end users do interact with.
  - intrinsicallee 6mo ago
    Build more broken stuff seems to be the endgame of "move fast and break things". Like PCC building empty cities, numbers go up I guess. What a world. I want something else entirely but lots of people seem to be fine with this model.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 6mo ago

0xffff2 6mo ago

Link to the announcement for anyone else like me who hasn't gotten the email yet: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-copilot-is-moving-to-usage-based-billing/ https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-copilo... Not really sure why I would stick with Copilot after this, and increasing Sonnet from 1x to 9x for annual subscribers is highway fucking robbery. Very glad I didn't commit myself to an annual plan.

malfist 6mo ago
What does that mean? That copilot users can use 1/9th of their prior usage of Sonnet?
- moontear 6mo ago
  Not quite. Premium models have different type of multipliers applied. The multiplier decides how many PRUs (premium request units or tokens) are used. These PRUs are replaced with different units with this announcement but the methodology remains the same: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/billing/copilot-requests#model-multipliers https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/billing/copilot-... Sometimes the multiplier increase is significant like for Claude Opus 4.6 from 3x to 27x (https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/copilot-billing/models-and-pricing#model-multipliers-for-annual-copilot-pro-and-copilot-pro-subscribers https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/copilot-billing...), meaning using that model will use up a lot more „tokens“ (whatever the new word for it is)
- 0xffff2 6mo ago
  Contrary to the other reply, I'm going to say yes, that's exactly what it means. For Github Copilot users with annual plans that are grandfathered in to per-prompt rather than per-token pricing, Github is increasing the cost of Sonnet from 1 "premium request" per Sonnet prompt to 9, thus meaning that those users will be able to submit 1/9th the number of prompts per month before incurring additional usage charges. For all practical purposes, this is a straightforward 9x increase in price.
999900000999 6mo ago

dang 6mo ago

(This was originally posted to Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921248, but in a perhaps-futile effort to keep the discussions partitioned, Maxwell's demon will move it to the Copilot pricing thread.)