5 ms·

Github does have per seat pricing (for their enterprise product, which is meant to be hosted locally): https://enterprise.github.com/pricing https://enterprise.

by diziet 14y ago

Github does have per seat pricing (for their enterprise product, which is meant to be hosted locally): https://enterprise.github.com/pricing https://enterprise.github.com/pricing - it costs $21/seat/month. With their per repo pricing I'd imagine they are more likely to earn more revenue per user, since so many developers will end up having many old pet projects in private repos sitting there.

mcintyre1994 14y ago
BitBucket's pricing is at $1/seat/month in the worst case though (assuming you match one of their intervals there). But yep I agree, Github is surely significantly more profitable than BitBucket.
- RyanZAG 14y ago
  Definitely agreed - I use BitBucket to store some private projects, which also means I don't pay them anything (yet). Seems not terribly profitable - I keep a backup elsewhere assuming Bitbucket will go down eventually from lack of funds!
  - joshuakarjala 14y ago
    I wouldn't worry so much about that. Seems like Bitbucket was acquired by Atlassian for two reasons: 1. Free DCVS hosting as a free perk to existing customers, with tight integration to existing Atlassian products. 2. Free DCVS hosting to non-customers, with the hopes of converting some to the Atlassian suite.
    - pearle 14y ago
      A while back my team switched to from an internal SVN system to BitBucket. We're now buying into the Atlassian OnDemand platform so it was definitely #2 for us.
crooy 14y ago
The Github enterprise version is unrealistically expensive. We (a dutch 'embedded' software company of about 300 developers) currently use SVN for our version control. We use some tool, of which I forgot the name, to simplify managing repositories and permissions. This costs us a couple of hours per year in maintenance and support, and the tool cost somewhere around 1500 euro. Hours go for around 80 euro's here, so lets say 3.000 euro TCO per year. For us having code in the cloud (read within reach of the US government) is not an option, our customers will not allow it. I believe our insurance will not even allow that. Also we need to have Ldap/Active Directory integration; Ldap is the only way we can effectively manage authorisation between a large amount of services. Looking at all the alternatives, Atlassian Stash, Gitstack, etc. Github is by far the most expensive(75.000 per year). Right now, we have decided that setting up a Gitblit server ourselves, will be the most cost effective. There is no way I can convince my boss that using Github will save us 60.000 euro per year.
- craftman 14y ago
  Fully agree with you. I use a private git repo on my own cloud server (west europe based). Github make full sense for open source projects, with easy forking and pull requests. However, I dont see any advantage to take a private repo, even worst at the price they propose, and hosted in a complex legal context.
- notimetorelax 14y ago
  When I learned about GitHub Enterprise I was very happy thinking that we can finally switch to Git (currently we use SVN) only to be saddened by their pricing. We have around 5000 employees, GitHub price for 500 seats is 125,000$, this is incredibly expensive. Judging by their pricing they don't want big companies to be their clients as simple as that. Atlassian for example had a lot of grief with us simply because their products didn't scale that well past 5000 users.
  - kondro 14y ago
    Have you thought about contacting them and asking for a discount for volume? Their enterprise pricing is probably designed for under a 100 employees. No one is going to make you commit to a contract or bite your hand off if you ask them if they can go cheaper.

by diziet 14y ago

mcintyre1994 14y ago

BitBucket's pricing is at $1/seat/month in the worst case though (assuming you match one of their intervals there). But yep I agree, Github is surely significantly more profitable than BitBucket.

RyanZAG 14y ago
Definitely agreed - I use BitBucket to store some private projects, which also means I don't pay them anything (yet). Seems not terribly profitable - I keep a backup elsewhere assuming Bitbucket will go down eventually from lack of funds!
- joshuakarjala 14y ago
  I wouldn't worry so much about that. Seems like Bitbucket was acquired by Atlassian for two reasons: 1. Free DCVS hosting as a free perk to existing customers, with tight integration to existing Atlassian products. 2. Free DCVS hosting to non-customers, with the hopes of converting some to the Atlassian suite.
  - pearle 14y ago
    A while back my team switched to from an internal SVN system to BitBucket. We're now buying into the Atlassian OnDemand platform so it was definitely #2 for us.

crooy 14y ago

The Github enterprise version is unrealistically expensive. We (a dutch 'embedded' software company of about 300 developers) currently use SVN for our version control. We use some tool, of which I forgot the name, to simplify managing repositories and permissions. This costs us a couple of hours per year in maintenance and support, and the tool cost somewhere around 1500 euro. Hours go for around 80 euro's here, so lets say 3.000 euro TCO per year. For us having code in the cloud (read within reach of the US government) is not an option, our customers will not allow it. I believe our insurance will not even allow that. Also we need to have Ldap/Active Directory integration; Ldap is the only way we can effectively manage authorisation between a large amount of services. Looking at all the alternatives, Atlassian Stash, Gitstack, etc. Github is by far the most expensive(75.000 per year). Right now, we have decided that setting up a Gitblit server ourselves, will be the most cost effective. There is no way I can convince my boss that using Github will save us 60.000 euro per year.

craftman 14y ago
Fully agree with you. I use a private git repo on my own cloud server (west europe based). Github make full sense for open source projects, with easy forking and pull requests. However, I dont see any advantage to take a private repo, even worst at the price they propose, and hosted in a complex legal context.
notimetorelax 14y ago
When I learned about GitHub Enterprise I was very happy thinking that we can finally switch to Git (currently we use SVN) only to be saddened by their pricing. We have around 5000 employees, GitHub price for 500 seats is 125,000$, this is incredibly expensive. Judging by their pricing they don't want big companies to be their clients as simple as that. Atlassian for example had a lot of grief with us simply because their products didn't scale that well past 5000 users.
- kondro 14y ago
  Have you thought about contacting them and asking for a discount for volume? Their enterprise pricing is probably designed for under a 100 employees. No one is going to make you commit to a contract or bite your hand off if you ask them if they can go cheaper.