13 ms·
Introducing unlimited private repositories
- petetnt 10y agoLinks not up yet, but you can already switch your plan https://github.com/organizations/your_org/settings/billing/per_seat https://github.com/organizations/your_org/settings/billing/p... for unlimited private repositories at $25/month for your first 5 users. $9/month for each additional user. (Edit: Up now! Personal plans get upgraded to unlimited too!)
- konole 10y agoLink to plans: https://github.com/pricing https://github.com/pricing
- grawlinson 10y agoThat's cool but seeing as Bitbucket has unlimited private repos for everyone, I'll be sticking with Bitbucket for private trash and Github for public trash.
- dchest 10y agoGitLab too.
- nametakenobv 10y agoVisual Studio TS too.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- k__ 10y agoSame here. That's the cool thing about Git. Everyone uses the same "protocol" so you can simply move your stuff around.
- nateguchi 10y agoI'm sure a lot of people will be moving from Bitbucket to this, Bitbucket's plans were great for hundreds of repos, but Github's ecosystem is definitely preferable.
- mistircek 10y agoI'm not sure, Bitbucket's price effectively is $1/user and Github's $9/user. I wouldn't expect organisations to move to Bitbucket either, as change is generally costly in terms of man-hour, but current price structure makes Bitbucket eight-fold cheaper.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Cozumel 10y agoWhy? BitBucket is superior in every respect, plus importantly they give free private repos for every user. No price gouging like we're seeing with GitHub.
- matthewmacleod 10y agoOh, come on. It's OK to dislike this change, but "BitBucket is superior in every respect" and "price gouging" are far from objectively obvious.
- rspeer 10y agoThis is, of course, a positive way to spin the fact that they're raising prices significantly for many organizations. I'm glad there's at least a year that we can keep using the old plans.
- 0xmohit 10y agos/many/most
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- discodave 10y agoFor comparison, quoting from the AWS CodeCommit pricing page... AWS CodeCommit costs: $1 per active user per month For every active user, your account receives for that month: 10 GB-month of storage 2,000 Git requests And the 1 year free tier is: 5 active users 50 GB-month of storage 10,000 Git requests
- voltagex_ 10y agoIt took a bit of searching to find out what a "Git Request" entailed: "A Git request includes any push or pull that transmits repository objects. The request does not count towards your Git request allowance if there is no object transfer due to local and remote branches being up-to-date." Anyone who's using CodeCommit - have you hit the limits? How much did you go over by?
- majewsky 10y agoI don't use CodeCommit, but I doubt that an average developer would be hitting the 2000-request boundary (that's 100 requests per day assuming a 5-day work week). Technical users like a CI might be more problematic.
- vacri 10y agoI think it's 2000 requests overall, and if you add in a few buildplans for each of a few repos, you'll easily hit it. Still, it's not pricey if you do.
- discodave 10y agoEven if you hit the limit it's $1 per 1000 requests after that... still potentially cheaper than GitHub. http://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/pricing/
- AndrewGaspar 10y agoI'm glad. Occasionally I would delete abandoned projects to make space and now they can live forever to remind me of my failure!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 0xmohit 10y agoWith this change, BitBucket pricing [0] gets to appear pretty attractive. (If you were an organization with few private repositories and large number of users, Github was earlier more affordable.) [0] https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=cloud-pricing https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=cloud-pricing
- 0x0 10y agoIt was already pretty attractive: Personal accounts get free unlimited repos (so inf% cheaper than github), and for organizations with few numbers of users but a huge number of repositories, github's largest plan was too small. :)
- lucaspiller 10y ago> Personal accounts get free unlimited repos And teams of up to 5 people.
- Ghostium 10y agoHmm, I still will use Gitlab instead of Github. Unlimited public and private repos for free is nice.
- marcosscriven 10y agoDoes anyone know how Gitlab plan to sustain that?
- hvidgaard 10y agoFor the vast majority of users the repos use almost zero ressources except for some tiny amount of space - limiting the amount you can have is artificial. Many repositories is no different than facebooks mega repository pattern, but that is allowed, so why not give the customers what they want? If they want a "sustainable model" they'd have to set an upper limit on space and reqs/day.
- stephenr 10y agoThey basically use the hosted environment to get a better understanding of how their software runs at scale, so they can improve it. It's all funded by enterprise licenses.
- EuAndreh 10y agoI believe that their profit comes from selling the Enterprise Edition of GitLab and support. gitlab.com and the Community Edition are all free, and I believe they intend to keep it this way.
- educar 10y agoa) They are vc funded b) They give things free to drive up adoption. For example, I don't think it will be free anymore if it was as popular as GitHub. Since that would not be sustainable. IMO, it's a poor decision by gitlab to give things out for free. Instead of innovating on features, they try to keep it cheap.
- sytse 10y ago
- jtchang 10y agoYay! No more bitbucket for all my private repos. I wonder if this change is because of competition?
- wfunction 10y agoBitBucket allows unlimited private repos for free; GitHub's seems to be just for the paid plans?
- opless 10y agoYup no reason to move from bit bucket yet.
- jaredsohn 10y agoIf you are interpreting this post as suggesting that github private repos are free, you are mistaken. It just means that if you pay for private repos, you don't have to worry about how many of them you have.
- t3nary 10y agoDoes anyone know if this will effect student plans as well? So far it included a free micro plan with the usual 5 private repos. Would be pretty awesome, I just had to host a repo somewhere else a few days ago because I ran out of private repos. Other than that it sounds like a great improvement, it'll make it a lot more likely that I'll pay for GitHub when I'm not a student anymore. /edit: https://github.com/pricing https://github.com/pricing makes it sound like this is for free student plans as well
- JDevlieghere 10y agoUnder the billing tab in my account it says: "Sit tight! We’re in the process of upgrading your account to unlimited private repositories."
- bkeepers 10y agoGood question! Students get free private repositories for 2 years. You can request the student discount at https://education.github.com/ https://education.github.com/
- t3nary 10y agoAwesome, thanks for the confirmation :)
- wlk 10y agoYes, students will also get unlimited private repos. Confirmation here: https://www.facebook.com/GitHubEducation/posts/598770483616240 https://www.facebook.com/GitHubEducation/posts/5987704836162...
- alanfranzoni 10y agoDo outside collaborators count as paid users?
- Xylakant 10y agoI'm curious as well.
- bkeepers 10y agoOutside collaborators count towards a seat on private repositories and are free on public repositories.
- vinmat 10y agoHi alanfranzoni, Outside collaborators on public repositories of an organization are free. Only the ones invited to collaborate on private repositories are counted as paid users. Hope this helps!
- Xylakant 10y agoThat means that the same user that is member of multiple organisations gets paid for multiple times? We're doing a lot of consulting and thus we do have a lot of people from other companies that get to have a read-only peek at some of our repos - the price would increase at least tenfold for us.
- giovannibajo1 10y agoThat is really unfair to software houses that need to add customers to projects. We have 29 users and 51 outside collaborators, and 60 repos. You can see that this plan change is going to be unaffordable for us.
- j4mie 10y agoSo to clarify: if I'm an organisation with 100 private repositories, and I add an outside collaborator with access to just one of them, I have to pay $9 a month for them? I was quite excited about this change (we're an agency with a large number of repos and a relatively small number of users) until I read your comment.
- BradRuderman 10y agoIts unfortunate that this doesn't promote trying to get business users to look at the code. In our organization 3 or 4 users are read only and really just go in at times to check specific errors, or logic for certain SQL queries, they don't really contribute. We will now have to pay $9 per month for these type of "read only" users.
- voltagex_ 10y agoCouldn't you use some other kind of display for these users? Seems like you'd only need 2 or 3 of these to justify a small project to get them the information they need without needing to be a paying GitHub user.
- majewsky 10y agoCouldn't you just use the same account for all of them, with a shared password?
- Xylakant 10y agohow would you restrict to repositories then? Given a large enough set of external stakeholders using a single account is not feasible.
- meetbryce 10y agoSeems like a good move, it's unclear to me what the difference is between Personal & Organization.
- lox 10y agoPretty angry that Github have made this change with no mechanism for adding machine users without paying a per month charge. It seems like a key feature, which is currently horribly painful to manage and now expensive. How does everyone else create credentials that CI can use to checkout code?
- myhf 10y agoDeploy keys
- lox 10y agohttps://developer.github.com/guides/managing-deploy-keys/ https://developer.github.com/guides/managing-deploy-keys/
- giovannibajo1 10y agoBoth Travis and Circle automatically install a deploy key into the project. It doesn't require additional machine users.
- lox 10y agoThat's fine if you have a single repo, but CI normally needs to access lots of different repos. GitHub's documentation describes why you need machine users for anything but the most trivial deployment. https://developer.github.com/guides/managing-deploy-keys/ https://developer.github.com/guides/managing-deploy-keys/ It's also what GitHub does internally.
- robalfonso 10y agoYep, same here. Our build system uses multiple repos (and now you can have as many as you want!) This is shortsighted on their part, I hope they pay attention.
- teraflop 10y agoIf I understand that page correctly, the only real difference is that Github arbitrarily prevents you from using the same deploy key for multiple repositories. If they lifted that restriction, this problem would go away.
- piyush_soni 10y agoStill, not even a couple of free private repositories?
- voltagex_ 10y agoIs there a way to get billed annually for a personal account? Makes budgeting easier and also protects me against AUD/USD changes.
- vinmat 10y agoYes, you can pay for a year upfront for a personal account.
- Illniyar 10y agoCan two individual priced accounts collaborate on the same private repository?
- bkeepers 10y agoAn individual on the Personal plan can add users to their private repositories for free.
- n9com 10y agoThis change worked out well for us. Gone from paying $200/month to just $25/month for our 5 person organisation.
- elmigranto 10y agoYou could've had it for free this whole time. (And still can!) https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing
- xillion 10y agoFree != better
- aavotins 10y agoChristmas is early this year.
- arnvald 10y agoA small comparison: Team | Cost Before | Cost Now 1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25 1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70 11 repos, 5 users | $50 | $25 11 repos, 10 users | $50 | $70 5 repos, 50 users | $25 | $430 50 repos, 5 users | $100 | $25 50 repos, 50 users | $100 | $430 I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and future requests from clients) fall into this category, but who else? The other case where it becomes cheaper is personal accounts. In all the other cases - it just looks like a raise of prices.
- chippy 10y agoThe numbers in the above chart are dollars, not number of repositories for those who are puzzled by it. It appears that along with this announcement they are raising the prices of an account.
- arnvald 10y agoHey, thanks for pointing that out, I updated it to be more clear!
- reycharles 10y agoAt work we have a bitbucket server with 6 users and 25 repositories. We recently switched to bitbucket server a few months ago. I'm sure we will get more repositories in the future. Some of the repositories are just a small collection of scripts while others are fairly big software projects.
- arnvald 10y agoAre you working on projects for clients or on your own product? Also, maybe I'm mistaken and this change actually makes sense. Until now I had a one repo called `utils` and we kept random scripts there. Now there won't be any cost for adding new repository, so it might happen we'll start splitting that one.
- giovannibajo1 10y ago
- imron 10y agoThe main image on that page looks remarkably similar to the 2010 Visual Studio logo: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/samer/archive/2010/01/27/quick-share-the-history-of-visual-studio.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/samer/archive/2010/01/27/quick-share...
- dawnerd 10y agoAlso https://step-3.app.box.com/s/k77k28sy0bdpo2drg2sqrbjhht25k9af/1/7858651297/64780303461/1 https://step-3.app.box.com/s/k77k28sy0bdpo2drg2sqrbjhht25k9a...
- red_admiral 10y agoFor small private projects, gitlab.com has had unlimited private repos for $0/month for a while now.
- mcintyre1994 10y agoAs has Bitbucket. Unlimited users too if you have a .edu or equivalent email.
- sytse 10y agoAnd on top of that we don't charge for collaborators.
- pilif 10y agoThe linked page is telling us that eventually, only the new plans will be available. For my case (15 users in the organization, using the bronze plan with a lot of not-so-important repos on our own server), this will be a price increase from $300/y to $1380/y - nearly 5x more expensive. I really hope the old plans stay around as long as possible. Also, consider external collaborators that are part of multiple organizations: Github will now receive the $9/month per external collaborator and organization they are in. That's one hell of a deal for github.
- heartbreak 10y agoI'll assume that none of your 15 users are software developers and that none of your users live in a first world country. I'll assume you pay a user $15,000 USD per year in salary. $225,000 for all 15 total. Cost of Github: $1,380. New operating costs: $226,380. I see that they have gone up by %0.6. Crushing.
- pilif 10y agoSome of these users are used for various error-reporting tools to report issues as. I'm not paying these any salary, nor are they actual, you know, people. Some of these users also aren't developers but just need access to the bug tracker. Some of them are outside contractors for whom multiple companies are now paying the github tax. But sure. $1.3K isn't much, but it's 5x more than what we had to pay previously and it's being sold as an improvement. It also means that I have to be much more mindful what other bot-accounts I'm going to add to the organisation. Plus now that github has increased the prices by 5x, who's to say they don't do it again at a late time? I don't have a problem with moderate price increases. But 5x is too much.
- heartbreak 10y ago$1,380 is so small an amount that when I worked at BigCorp I could expense that and more each month without approval. No one cares about a thousand bucks.
- 10y ago
- gelatocar 10y agoWhat about companies like Epic Games that have few repos but many users? With their 2 private UnrealEngine and UnrealTournament repos they would have been paying $25 a month and under the new pricing structure will have to pay $815,913 per month... edit: That's based on what I can see as a UE4 subscriber, 2 private repos and 90657 users.
- petetnt 10y agoMake "Epic Games" a personal account and add everyone as collabs and it's 7 bucks a month, down from 25?
- Strom 10y agoThe post says this about personal accounts: you can even invite a few collaborators. I can't find the exact definition of "a few", but I imagine it's less than 90657.
- bkeepers 10y agoWe are reaching out to customers that are in unique situations such as the one you're mentioning here. If you have questions about how the pricing changes affect you, please don’t hesitate to contact support@github.com.
- Sephr 10y agoIf you need to give Epic Games special treatment just because they have a huge amount of outside collaborators, then your pricing model is broken. It would be more fair to charge $9/mo per organization member + $1/mo per active outside collaborator (somewhat similar to AWS CodeCommit) than to charge for every single active and inactive member and collaborator equally. Maybe throw in a 50% bulk discount for active outside collaborators over 1000. This is not a "unique situation", it's how many organizations use GitHub (just on a smaller scale than Epic Games). As giovannibajo1 puts it[1], this change is very unfair to software houses. Giving Epic Games special treatment is only avoiding the issue. If 5% of Epic Game's 90664 collaborators are active for a given month, then with my proposed pricing model it would now cost them ($9/organization member + ~$2766)/mo, instead of >$800k/mo. No special deals needed, and everyone (presumably) is happy. This proposed pricing model also scales well for software houses that have have many active outside collaborators. For example, a company with 20 employees and 50% of 100 outside collaborators active in any given month would be charged $230/mo. With 50 employees and 50% of 500 outside collaborators active, it would be $700/mo. This should also work well for large companies. 200 employees + 30% of 4000 outside contributors active = $2900/mo. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11673352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11673352
- Aissen 10y agoI know a lot of companies that are too cheap to pay for hosting (or even host in-house), and therefore use bitbucket with its unlimited private repos. It's their gateway drug, and once they get used to that, good luck having them move over to github.
- Scea91 10y agoWhy use the derogaroty 'too cheap'? Maybe they are just not 'too stupid' to pay more than they have to.
- SyneRyder 10y ago"Too cheap" sounds a fair comment to me if the price is free. Anything free is almost certainly a loss-leader, as providing the service itself is almost certainly not free (whether it's a tiny-but-non-zero bandwidth cost, or the costs of providing support). So long as the loss-leader is paying its way via the upsell, it's fine. And if those businesses have contingency plans for moving if BitBucket shuts down the free plan, then it's fine for them too. But the fear is that "too cheap" companies also tend to be cheap when it comes to managing contingencies.
- Aissen 10y agoI guess my critic is that you should always know why you use a service, and not just use it because it's the cheapest solution out there. In particular, is bitbucket(/github/gitlab…) adapted to your needs ? Will it support your growth ? Is it ok to have your source code on someone else's (or another country's) server ? Lots of question to be answered, and a conscious choice to make, without looking at only pricing. I was talking about companies doing the latter, not all bitbucket free users (of which I am one myself).
- stephenr 10y ago> too cheap to pay for hosting That's your view of companies that don't throw money at an over priced service with a history of ignoring customer requests? "too cheap". I hear that's why Linus first wrote the Linux kernel back in the day - he was too cheap to buy a license for a commercial unix. /s
- nikolay 10y agoThis is way too expensive! Self-hosted GitLab is cheaper and has better uptime! Not to mention, they should have made you pay only for users with commit rights!
- glusterfuck 10y agoOnly if you assign no value to your own time, and assume you can do a better job with availability and durability than a dedicated Operations team and a multi-million dollar budget.
- partycoder 10y agoI am strongly considering moving to gitlab.
- EuAndreh 10y agoThey have CI within gitlab.com even for private repos :)
- partycoder 10y agorad
- educar 10y agoWell, I bet you won't move. Just do it and let us know.
- jventura 10y agoI have all my private projects in gitlab for quite some time, and only my public projects in github..
- atonse 10y agoI have some private repos on gitlab and it is sloooooooow to push and pull. It routinely takes 10 seconds to push or pull. That itself makes deploys seem like a chore. And it's enough to make me come back to github for a mere $7.
- sytse 10y agoI'm sorry GitLab.com is slow, we're working to make it faster in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues/42 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues/42
- atonse 10y agoNo worries – It's just not a good fit right now but can change back once the performance improves. My loyalty to github is 95% about the performance, not really anything else. I've actually been following that thread and it's been interesting to read and watch the progress.
- bufordsharkley 10y agoHave been using Github for a community radio station, have been encouraging all staffers to use github accounts to file issues against our private repos, etc. The friendly policies for many collaborators have made this attractive, even though most users have rarely interacted with the repos, if at all. Now each user for the private repo has a significant cost (pretty significant for a non-profit community radio station); looks like we'll have to rethink this whole Github thing.
- moby 10y agoCertainly appreciate your question around pricing for non-profits here - have you applied for non-profit status through GitHub? We do have discounts to support eligible non-profit organizations, and you can request the discount at https://github.com/nonprofit https://github.com/nonprofit. Feel free to reach out to Support (https://github.com/c https://github.com/c) if you have any further questions around this!
- rplnt 10y agoI don't think there is a question in that post. Also there's "non-profit" (business) and "non-profit" (hobby).
- wbillingsley 10y agoOut of interest, why do you require charities to have no religious affiliation at all? Perhaps there's some US tax or legal aspect to it? At at first glance from overseas, it seems oddly churlish and monoculturalist (dare I say "fearful of the prayerful") to disallow community groups and charities where actually yes their beliefs did prompt them to step out in service, and they are not ashamed of that. I can't imagine it's a big part of your revenue base, and I wonder if there's more people like me who casually read it and quietly think "ooh, that's a bit inward-looking and snarky -- and goodness they put it on the page twice to make sure" than groups who are actually affected by it. Suddenly those cheery octocats under "We love people who are changing the world" seem just that bit more limited and exclusionary. If I was in a satirical and provocative mood, I might ask, are they holding hands in togetherness, or to keep the undesirables out?
- hartror 10y agoFinally! While as others point out this can work out more expensive the improvement is is that it scales as my company scales and doesn't act as a disincentive to developers spinning up new repos.
- romanovcode 10y agoI see absolutely no reason why one would pay GitHub for private repositories when there is Bitbucket, or much better alternative to GitHub altogether - GitLab.
- xillion 10y agoBecause businesses need money to survive and most have no problem spending it when it increases productivity or provides perceived value over another product.
- Singletoned 10y agoYeah, this makes internally hosted GitLab VERY attractive for us now. Even the Enterprise edition is going to be significantly cheaper than GitHub.
- ThatPlayer 10y agoWhen people mention GitLab I always wonder if you mean the public hosted GitLab, or running your own GitLab.
- enzanki_ars 10y agoUsually, they are referring to the public GitLab as it is a free installation of GitLab Enterprise Edition with free private repositories.
- romanovcode 10y ago
- Rapzid 10y agoAll those private repos and no way to organize them :( Where are the namespaces/projects github?
- stephenr 10y agoHopefully this opens the eyes of at least some people into realising that GitHib !== git, and GitHub !== dvcs (similarly, git !== dvcs). There are several alternatives out there, almost all of which provide more options at lower cost than GitHub. I know, I know "everyone is familiar with github". If your developers can't function without GitHub specifically, you have a bigger problem than the new GitHub pricing.
- Cozumel 10y ago'unlimited private repos' if you pay. BitBucket gives you them free and always has!
- a_imho 10y agobitbucket used to offer 5 private repos for free
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- imcotton 10y agoGitLab gets 1 point without doing anything, oddly.
- jdudek 10y agoYay, no more using single repo with orphan branches to save on number of repositories :-)
- kuon 10y agoNow I have to pay for external collaborators? Are you kidding me? We are a small team of 5, but making softwares for other, I'll have to move away from github with the new pricing, we have nearly ten people per repository that might just be exec who never accessed the repo but must have access to it.
- lucasnemeth 10y agogit is distributed. You can give access to a mirror of your git repo for execs that don't access the repo or contribute to it. They don't need to be github users, they just need git access to an url. If github is still convenient for you, there is a solution to avoid paying for this users. It only really makes sense to have developers added as github users (of course, it used to be convenient to just ask them to be github users, but it never really made sense)
- kuon 10y agoI know git is distributed, that's not the point. Github as a platform is convenient and understood even by non technical people. They can browse files, even edit on the web.
- lucasnemeth 10y agoI hope they create a stakeholder account for that. But it is wrong to put all your eggs in one basket. Github is nice to show to non technical people but it is definitely an over kill.
- xchaotic 10y agoSo what makes them think that they can get away with it? There's already decent competitors - GitLab, BitBucket, Azure or you can just host your own git repos - gitlab will even give you a nice Web UI for it. Why do they think that people with stick with github, if we're talking $thousands/year then surely migrating to another git repo provider is worth it?
- stubish 10y agoVendor lockin. Because there is a lot more involved that accessing files in a .git directory. All those CI systems and workflow plugins and whatnots such as travis-ci work with github, not git. And all the inflight issues and pull requests etc. Migrating or giving up the features you use has a cost (not just in dollars), and if github has done their sums right most customers will realize they are better off staying where they are.
- a_imho 10y agoTravis CI is pretty minor player (google search 10M > hits), and I would say 3rd party service integration is exactly vendor lockin. Imho this makes sense, because users who cared about pricing already moved on to cheaper alternatives and/or not used github to begin with. I agree, mass migration or phasing out github is unlikely because of the associated costs, however with all the other great services around new users might think twice where to sign up.
- sytse 10y agoJust wanted to mention that on GitLab.com we offer unlimited GitLab CI to run your tests https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ci/ https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ci/ https://about.gitlab.com/2016/04/19/gitlab-partners-with-digitalocean-to-make-continuous-integration-faster-safer-and-more-affordable/ https://about.gitlab.com/2016/04/19/gitlab-partners-with-dig...
- z3t4 10y agoWhat's the difference between a GIT server and say a HTTP server? To my understanding, Github are unable to scale GIT, so they have to price accordingly.
- lox 10y agoThis is not how pricing works.
- z3t4 10y agoYou would need a lot of margin to not base the price on the production costs. If 200 users cost double as much as 100 users, it's hard to not base the price on number of users.
- lox 10y agoPricing is a function of what people will pay for it, not what it costs to make. Consider Slack as a fine example.
- z3t4 10y agoI read an article not long ago that Github had to spin up three physical machines, just to handle one customer. Although it was an extreme example. Compared to slack, who could probably have a million users one a single machine, making it almost zero marginal cost per new user. While a user for Github means buying more hardware and a notable marginal cost. If you for example are a reseller of commodity goods, you can't have a lower price then the price you buy it for. So you can't have a model of say unlimited goods for a monthly fee. And the price will most likely be based on per good.
- brianwawok 10y agoYou realize Slack does full searching on your chat + your attached google drive? I would not be surprised for some big Enterprise customers to have 100GB of total data indexed. Not saying the price is related to the cost, but I am not sure about the no marginal cost part.
- spriggan3 10y agoThe pricing is clearly designed to make more revenue from businesses with a lot of users, which makes sense for Github but not for big teams in /mid sized shops who will be paying a lot more.
- lucasnemeth 10y agoIt will attract more small companies and freelance single developers as well.
- ThePhysicist 10y agoIt would be interesting to know how many users and repositories a typical organization has on Github. To me, it looks like they're just "optimizing" their pricing, as I would guess that most large organizations using Github have significantly more users than repositories, especially with the recent trend towards "mono-repositories". That said, SaaS pricing is really hard to get right from the beginning. I run a code analysis company (https://www.quantifiedcode.com https://www.quantifiedcode.com) and we thought a lot about which kind of pricing would be the best for us and our users (we decided to use per-repo pricing). In the end, your pricing needs to support your business model, so it's normal to change it especially if you have a lot of data on how your users use your product. I wonder though if this will drive organizations to other solutions like Gitlab or Bitbucket, as those are significantly cheaper and pretty easy to set up these days (and you get the extra benefit of a self-hosted solution that can be hosted in your own, secure infrastructure)
- jamies888888 10y agoVery cleverly worded to sound like a price reduction when it's actually a price increase.
- hunvreus 10y ago1. Take a gazillion dollars in funding on an over-hyped valuation, 2. Go through significant organizational changes that end up with the departure of a co-founder (and more suits in the building). 3. Notice that a significant segment of your growth (VC-funded startups) are running out of money. 4. Switch to a user-based pricing to generate more revenue for investors, but spin it as a freebie "Hey! Look at the cool unlimited shit! No, no! Don't pay attention to the fact you're gonna be charged 3 times as much as before for the same service". The bottom line is that GitHub is free to do whatever the heck they want; if they believe that charging per user is going to make more (financial) sense to them, then they can go ahead and do it. But I'd appreciate if their PR department didn't expect us to swallow this as a positive change. Most coders understand basic maths.
- nxzero 10y agoCompared to products like Salesforce, GitHub seems cheap to me. What to you is a fair price and why?
- hunvreus 10y agoAs stated at the end of my comment, a fair price is what they decide to charge. I simply don't like people to try and spin a price increase into a freebie.
- blowski 10y agoYou mean... you don't like it when the marketing department of a profit-making enterprise does marketing in an attempt to make more profit? I work in a small agency, and our GitHub bill will go down as a result of these changes.
- Chris2048 10y agoYes, that type of "marketing". It's bullshit.
- deleted 10y ago
- Twisell 10y agoThe main drawback of a lot of Cloud based business model I have seen is that nobody think its fine to pay for leechers. The per user pricing is pretty reasonable but only when you think of seeders (publishers/editors/pushers call them as you like). For instance I would love to subscribe to a BI cloud suite that really fit my need, but I'm basically the sole query editor and I have potentially 200 private readers + some public OpenData. I simply just can't come to my boss and ask that we subscribe to this service on a 200 users basis while only one users will really have the use of the license...
- andreamazz 10y agoAs much as I would love to switch to GitHub for our private repos, it still is way more expensive than BitBucket.
- jiang101 10y agoI'm a member of a Github organisation with 63 members and 20 private repositories. As far as I can see, this changes our yearly cost from $600 to $6564.
- sandGorgon 10y agoThank you - this is very exciting. Bitbucket uses a per-user pricing and it has been extremely useful for us. People forget how useful it has been to not worry about the number of scratch repositories we can create as we experiment. Our main repo is a single monolithic repo. But do you not ask your consultants/outside resources to work on a company repo ? how do you price that I wonder. I am not sure why people would like stuff to be priced per repo. It is a fairly unintuitive model for me and is a huge problem when you need to go an explain to the finance team that you need to spend more because you "created more repos"... say wut? Spending per user is a very clean way of pricing.
- mnml_ 10y agotoo expensive
- jrgifford 10y agoIs there a definition of "a few collaborators" anywhere? How many people, and is it per repo or per paid account? Really need more information before I decide if GitHub continues to get my $7/month or not.
- timvdalen 10y agoWhile unlimited private repositories sounds good, this change means that our GitHub costs are now 2.3x higher. If this is going to be enforced, we'll need to decide between cutting away users from the org or moving to a different platform.
- drinchev 10y agoWow. Companies definitely suffer. For me ( freelancing dev, working primarily with startups ) it's a huge win. GitHub vs BitBucket was always about : 1) 3rd party integrations ( CircleCI - e.g. ) - sadly bitbucket is behind that. 2) Issue management. Bitbucket's default behavior doesn't support labels or any other way of managing the issues structure. Now, honestly CircleCI + GitHub for 7$ is just extremely cheap. ( talking solo devs / small teams ).
- bsnape 10y agoThis has almost quadrupled our monthly cost ($850 vs $2914). We have ~300 users which will have to be reduced massively to save costs - perhaps with non-engineers sharing accounts or having no access at all. I'm not sure if charging per user is really in the spirit of open collaboration that GitHub champions. I slo wonder if charging per user rather than per repo will also discourage the creation of open-source repos from orgs? There's no longer a (reduced) cost benefit after all, even if that was a minor influence compared with the other benefits of open-sourcing your code.
- Etheryte 10y agoIf you already invest into this monthly, why don't you just have GitLab on premise?
- bsnape 10y agoWe like to use hosted services rather than host them on-prem where possible (AWS, Artifactory, Slack, GitHub). For the size of our company we have relatively few engineers. Not hosting things ourselves increases our productivity and we can concentrate on our own products :-)
- CameronBanga 10y agoGitLab has a hosted solution, take a look at that. We love them, and they making moving over from GitHub easy.
- odonnellryan 10y agoYou have 300 employees and an extra $6/mo/em is going to break you? How much do you spend on toilet paper? :)
- smackfu 10y agoDoesn't say they are employees.
- chj 10y agoself hosted gitlab, for about 10$/month you get unlimited repos, unlimited users.
- keithnz 10y agoI like gitthub, I have my open source stuff with github, but when it comes to private repos, bitbucket just seems better pricing and in someways just a nicer and cleaner interface https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing
- keithnz 10y agoI like github, I have my open source stuff with github, but when it comes to private repos, bitbucket just seems better pricing and in someways just a nicer and cleaner interface https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing
- sudhirj 10y agoWhat's with all the negativity? This is really good pricing - all individuals now pay much less (a flat rate of $7), all small shops pay almost the same thing ($30 to $90 for 3 to 10 people). Both groups no longer need to think twice about creating repos, which has always been a huge pain that I've seen. I've even thought twice about microservices because the repo cost would be a pain. This will affect enterprises - but then they're either already on Github Enterprise or are used to per user pricing anyway. Google Apps, Slack etc all have (quantitavely similar) per user pricing. Google doesn't charge you based on the number of emails you send, nor does Slack charge based on the number of private rooms there are - that would be dumb. The band of companies between small shops and enterprises are likely to be affected, but then this is really employee lunch money.
- Etheryte 10y agoAs pointed out by numerous other comments, this pricing model makes no sense for a lot of use-cases: external collabs, inactive collabs, wide org structure etc. Many companies would expect to now pay a magnitude or multiple more than before, this is hardly "lunch money".
- pilif 10y ago> This will affect enterprises - but then they're either already on Github Enterprise or are used to per user pricing anyway my organization currently contains 15 github users. 2 of which are used by error reporting tools to open bugs (Sentry, Crashlytics), one of which is used by Jenkins, 3 of which are outside contractor for which github now will get the money multiple times as companies move to the same billing method. We had 9 repos on github (and about 20 smaller ones with less collaboration on a self-hoste gitolite installation), so we paid $300 per year. Now I have unlimited repos of which I still only use 9, but now I pay $1300 per year, whereby 3 of these accounts I'm paying for aren't actually real people and another 3 of these accounts I'm paying for even though multiple other companies are also paying for them. Aside of the nearly 5x increase in price, I think it's also unfair having to pay for practically unused bug-reporting-only accounts and having to pay for accounts that are already paid for by a multitude of other companies. I don't think this is good pricing for me. Also as this isn't just a moderate increase, but a whopping 5x increase, I also strongly consider moving back away to a self-hosted solution because increasing the price by 5x is breaking the trust put into github as a third-party provider. Increasing the price a bit is fine. But 5x is excessive.
- tanepiper 10y agoThere is an element of "double dipping" here that I see as a problem. I already pay $7 a month for my own personal Github account, and for me personally it's nice to have no limit. But if we switch to the new model at work then not only am I paying my $7, but my company will have to pay an additional $9p/m for me to have access to the repos I use daily for work. Even if they removed me from the organisation and added me as a collaborator this will be an additional cost. They can spin it how they like but I suspect for a large number of organisations they are going to see quite an increase in cost from using Github.
- heartbreak 10y agoDoes your ISP double dip if they charge your employer for business internet access and you for home internet access?
- benguild 10y agoThis is nice. Now I won't have to keep deleting private repos to make room for new ones
- erikrothoff 10y agoThis is awesome! I'm currently paying 50 USD per month for more repos on my private account. Definitely the right way to go.
- kapv89 10y agoNothing beats https://bitbucket.org/ https://bitbucket.org/ when it comes to free, unlimited, private repositories. It has seen the first hosted repositories of far more startups than github ever will. Which is special achievement in itself.
- therealmarv 10y agoYou should check out gitlab.com
- dreamsofdragons 10y agoI have, I'll continue to use bitbucket.
- Kratisto 10y agoAny reason why? Just wondering.
- msbarnett 10y agoGitLab's UI is pretty terrible, even compared to the not-so-great-either BitBucket UI. GitLab's UI/UX is regressive to the point that when you visit a repo, you have to click another link just to see the damn sourcecode. It's as though they ignored every advance in source-code UX post-Sourceforge. The stacked global and per-repo sidebars are confusing in a way that baffled me for several minutes, as well. They need a serious rethink of their UI/UX.
- andromeduck 10y agoIDK, you have the option of whether to show files vs readme on landing but I actually actually prefer landing on readme first as it gives me an idea of what it is I'm looking at before deciding to dig into the code or not. The main issue with GitLab right now IMO is that it's so fucking slow at times -- ike seconds per page slow...
- tyingq 10y agoIf you happen to be a group that will be affected negatively by this move because you have a need for read-only users... Gogs has mirror functionality where you could self-host access for those users in a fairly painless way. Screenshot of import screen: http://i.imgur.com/J4vWCIB.png http://i.imgur.com/J4vWCIB.png More on gogs here: https://github.com/gogits/gogs https://github.com/gogits/gogs (no association with gogs, just thought it might be helpful)
- joeblau 10y agoI just had a discussion with my buddy about repositories yesterday. He wanted access to some code I had for uploading CSV files to iCloud and it's hosted on a private repo on GitHub. He was saying "I still use BitBucket's private repos"; My response was that the GitHub community is a lot stronger. Outside of community, it was hard for me to convince him that GitHub is worth it. I've been using GitHub for a few years now to host private and public repos and paid private repos was always a point of contention. Now that they are unlimited, I can say that GitHub is definitely going to be the home to all of my future projects. I really feel like GitHub has been kicking it up a notch in 2016. Awesome work team and thanks!
- gommm 10y agoThat makes a lot more sense in term of pricing and if that had existed earlier, I'd probably not have bothered hosting my own gitlab repository. I like to have a lot of little repos even keeping some of my private experiments and so the limit of repositories never really made sense to me. It might make sense however to not count collaborators with read-only access. Of course, now that I have gitlab, there's very little reason for me to come back.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y agoMisleading headline alert; should say "for paid accounts" I got way too excited there :-(
- ACow_Adonis 10y agoAs a solo developer who had currently paid up for monthly access annually, I feel obligated to feed back that this is pretty good news for me. Go github. The 5 private repositories was a bit grating and making me considering a move elsewhere. I was going to have to consider changing how I stored/structured my projects in order to stay under what seemed to me to a relatively arbitrary limit, which interfered with some of my automated tools and how I'd set them up to assume a separate repository for each project. I realise there are a number of bigger organisations for whom this realistically means a hike in prices, and I'm winning relative to their losing, but as someone who wants to keep advantages to the little guys (that's the genuinely little guys, not a bunch of 50-100 guys bankrolled by several SV millionaires/billionaires)...well, I feel its my duty to weigh in with positive feedback against what is probably going to be some negativity from the bigger guys...
- r3bl 10y agoFive private repos were more then enough for me. When I ran out of them, I noticed that there's at least one that either does not need to be private anymore or just does not have to be on GitHub since I ditched that idea. It was a nice way for me to keep my GitHub profile nice and tidy.
- samir16 10y agoIts awesm
- samir16 10y agoIts awesm
- caseymarquis 10y agoThe number of very small teams or individuals this encourages to start using github probably allows every organization who can't afford this to leave and github to still increase the money they're making. It seems like a good move based on my imagined profile of their user base. 1 million teens and young 20-somethings just decided they'll give 7$ a month to github. For bigger organizations, this is practically no money compared to other software they're using. So they'll just take the hit. Sounds like the only customers being lost were those using github for no-commit users. Is that really a huge segment? If so they just need a special account status to fix this. I think the question is why this took so long.
- matthoffman 10y ago> Sounds like the only customers being lost were those using github for no-commit users. Is that really a huge segment? If so they just need a special account status to fix this. I would think this is a large segment, or at least Github would like it to be. Any software company that sells its software directly, and so has a sales team, a support team, marketing and so on will need to make all of those people users in Github if they're going to raise GH issues, see the code, prototype something for a client, help with branding, or anything else. If you're using Github the way they want you to (issue tracking, wiki, all of the things Github adds over vanilla Git that are "sticky"/hard to transfer to a competing service) you don't want to restrict access to just your developers. You want your whole company to be using it. In any software company I've worked for, those non-developer users number 3-4x the actual number of developers. And I've never worked for a company that would consider restricting which users could raise issues with the product. I agree that having a non-commit account status that didn't count toward the per-user pricing would fix this, for that particular (I think common?) case.
- therealmarv 10y agoIt seems most users here don't have gitlab.com in their radar and only mentioning Bitbucket as competitor. I've recently switched all my private personal repos to gitlab.com which also allows unlimited private repositories because gitlab.com seems to have better UI and more features than Bitbucket (when not buying any additional Atlassian Jira etc. products).
- zxcvcxz 10y agoSame here I love gitlab and especially their UI. I've seen some gitlab devs on here before too and they were really friendly. Only draw back is that the sites kind of slow for me, but so was github.
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoFor all of my personal projects I use GitLab. It has about the same amount of features as GitHub (more in many areas, in fact) and it's free for most usage, even private. GitLab and BitBucket are going to eat GitHub's lunch if they don't change this crazy pricing model.
- sytse 10y agoGlad to hear you like GitLab!
- pwny 10y agoGood to note that self hosting Gitlab (CE in my case) is a breeze. I'm pretty bad at infra and sysadmin stuff and I've been maintaining an instance for a group of friends for about a year now with no issue. Installation is easy, upgrading (even between major versions) is completely painless, you get integration with Gitlab Continuous Integration, the Community Edition doesn't feel artificially gimped to get you to switch to a paid plan, Gitlab is great at fixing security issues. I also love the UX and it's not missing any feature in my experience compared to GitHub/Bitbucket. I'm not affiliated with Gitlab in any way but it's honestly one of the rare pieces of software I only have praise for.
- kaffeinecoma 10y agoI'm really looking forward to no longer having to figure out which project I have to axe to keep my "small" plan under the 10 repo maximum. That was always annoying.
- cwmma 10y agoand bitbucket's sole reason for existing has gone away
- biztos 10y agoI find it interesting that so many people here are unhappy with the change. Sure, prices will go up for a lot of organizations, but is $9/worker/month really a lot to pay for all the stuff GitHub offers? At Bay Area prices isn't that about 5 minutes of developer pay per month? For independent use it seems like a very positive change, in fact I'm guessing it's a direct challenge to GitLab. I was considering moving my stuff to GitLab simply because I'm tired of bundling experiments/prototypes into umbrella repos just to stay under the 10 repo limit at GitHub. For people like me this will be awesome, and I take it as a good sign that they're responding to the competition. One thing I don't get however: how do they count shared access to private repos? If I have a private repo and you have a private repo, and we each grant access to the other's repo so we can collaborate, do we now have two or four billing units? They say "you can even invite a few collaborators" -- but how are you billed if it's more than a "few?" I don't mind if they try to close the loophole of making up an "organization" out of a lot of "individual developers" but it seems a little vague.
- Xylakant 10y ago> If I have a private repo and you have a private repo, and we each grant access to the other's repo so we can collaborate, do we now have two or four billing units? 4. Each of you has 2. One for yourself and one for the collaborator. Which answers the question of why some people are unhappy with the change: it punishes organizations that collaborate a lot.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- softinio 10y agoThis is fantastic news in my opinion.
- Zypho 10y agoEveryone who is crying right now would be crying more if Github were to make the price free for private repos because with that, the amount of open source libraries they use would be cut in half.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Zypho 10y ago-points but no reasons? Agreed this will impact some organizations in negative ways such as the non-for-profit orgs. To that Github offers support in this sense here: https://github.com/nonprofit https://github.com/nonprofit Like others, without specific data, I would assume this will impact the majority of users on Github for the better and that organizations with many contributors needing access to private repos are the minority. In any pricing structure change, there is always going to be a minority that is impacted negatively. I don't think Github would have made this decision without analytics to back it up. Another fair point is I think this structure is more appealing to companies who prefer to look at cost-per-employee for something that is an everyday tool rather than cost-of-architecture.
- sqldba 10y agoI love the clickbait. It's missing 3 words - "for paid users". Everyone has clicked it to be disappointed. GitLab++.
- khan20 10y agoThe price change for large organizations is insane. If you have a private repo with 100 collaborators it will cost you $10800 pr year. We have 300+ users and 70+ repo's. (Everyone in the company have access to github for internal open source projects etc). We are now looking at $30 000 pr year... The only way I see this new plan viable is if they only count active users (with commits) each month.
- throwaway2016a 10y agoThis change actually saved me a lot of money per month. We use micro-service architecture and furthermore do consulting work so we had a Platinum level plan with only 7 people with access. This greatly improved our billing situation. Although I can very much see how it could go the other way.
- m4tthumphrey 10y agoI find it quite hard to comprehend why people use Github for private repositories. There are many free alternatives. BitBucket seems to be the famous one, but Gitlab has grown into an amazing product with 3 different offerings; On premise community edition, on premise enterprise and hosted (like Github). We have used the on premise community edition for about 3 years now. I first installed it when you had to run about a billion commands manually and it was great even then. Now you can install it with an apt-get and a few lines. Lets not forget about the obvious negatives of Github (ignoring pricing). 1) Its hosted which means it can go down 2) It is closed source 3) Feature based is quite small (compared to Gitlab) Gitlab is a regular release cycle, once a month which always comes with new features. I personally think it is a no brainer.
- sytse 10y agoThanks for mentioning GitLab!
- xillion 10y agoIf every organization went to free alternatives, not only would those free alternatives need a source of revenue to support the new business, I think you'd find they too will change their pricing structure to better fit the people that use their product. One thing I also have to mention is a majority of for profit organizations have no problem paying for services they use. HN is a special snowflake on the internet, it's not a reliable source of market research by any means. I can guarantee you none of the competitors are in it to provide a charity. They all want and NEED to make money somehow, I think you'll be surprised how long free solutions tend to last.
- m4tthumphrey 10y agoI get that, but and most of these companies do offer paid alternatives. My point is that if you are able, why not self host? There will always be companies that cannot self host which pay for the hosted solutions.
- seanclayton 10y agoOn Gitlab.com's homepage[0] there is a giant product listing showing you exactly what you are saying they need to have: A source of revenue (GitLab Enterprise Edition). [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/ https://about.gitlab.com/
- edpichler 10y agoTo me this is a good change, I have lots of private repositories and a small team.
- ismyrnow 10y agoGithub is... adopting the old Visual Studio logo? http://static.flickr.com/2768/4307936121_5b5e51a790.jpg http://static.flickr.com/2768/4307936121_5b5e51a790.jpg
- shrugger 10y agoBut why should I use Github over Gitlab? I don't care about popularity, Gitlab already offers the minimal set of features I care about, and has demonstrated a neutral business model. Github had leaks coming out about how 'white men' aren't suitable to solve GH's business problems, why should I want to associate with an organization that discriminates people based on the color of their skin rather than by the contents of their code? I'm glad that they are offering this, I think their customers will put this offering to good use, but it doesn't convince me.
- donatj 10y agoWe have a large number of people in our organization who have GitHub access who do not code and instead file or manage tickets. $9 a month just to be able to file a ticket is rather steep.
- danvoell 10y agoI hope this doesn't lead to less open sourced software. Since it will be easier to keep your code private.
- wtbob 10y agoDefinitely cool, but I honestly think that if your organisation needs more than a handful of repositories then it's very likely doing something wrong.
- CiPHPerCoder 10y agoThis change was beneficial to me. Before upgrading, a grand total of 4 users had access to our private repositories, of which we were only using 7 out of 10. I was nervous about running out of repositories moreso than the cost of adding people. (If we grow our team, it's because we have a lot of client work that's outside my immediate strong suits and we had to hire. If we do that twice, I'll gladly pay the extra $9/month.)
- willcodeforfoo 10y agoThis is awesome! I have wanted a different pricing structure for personal accounts for a long time. And for those who have issues with the organizational changes, did you see? > I am an existing organization customer and prefer the per-repository plans. Can I remain on my current plan? > Yes, you can choose to continue paying based on the number of repositories you use. You can also upgrade or downgrade in the legacy repository structure based on the number of repositories you need.
- patcon 10y agoThis is absolutely fucking atrocious news for any company who wants to run an agile operation. I always framed the "Github vs Bitbucket" as an "agile vs enterprise" mentality -- BitBucket made you think hard about adding new people, and air on the side of limiting access -- ie. conceal by default. That's perfect for enterprise, but the worst fucking incentive ever for an org that wants to make as many projects as possible accessible to all company members. GitHub (in times past), removed this cognitive burden of thinking "does this person /really/ need access....?" -- ie. transparent by default. But now they've fucked up. I was always in favour of avoiding self-hosting when there was a great hosted service like GitHub available. But I would now never advise any company that I cared about to use GitHub. It will contort and twist the openness you wish to imbue in your growing company
- beberlei 10y agoThe incentive changes for this are so massive, nice "experiment" from an economics perspective. 1. penalizes OpenSource organizations that need a few private repos for password, server configuration or other things. Was 25$ before, now for example Doctrine with 48 collaborators it would be 394$. Even if just the admins have access to that repository. 2. penalizes collaboration, inviting every non-technical person in the company? 2-5 employees of the customer? not really. Will lead organizations to create a single "non-technical" user that everyone can use to comment on stuff. not to mention bots, especially since you need users for servers in more complex deployment scenarios. 3. rewards having many repos, small throw away stuff and generally will lead to "messy" repositories lying around everywhere that are committed on once or twice and never touched again. "Not having to think about another private repository", imho will produce technical debt for organizations. 4. users in many private orgs will need to pay or get paid for every organization each. I myself will be worth 45$ now for Github, being in private repositories of five different companies. All in all, this just shows that Github does not care as much about open source anymore as it cares about Enterprise. Btw: Mentioning the price jumps in repository usage of the old pricing is not really helpful. Consider a pricing that would be per repository (1$ for personal, 2$ for organizations) and doesnt have jumps and compare that to the new per using pricing. The new pricing only feels better for some, because you pay marginal costs for every single user instead of the old pricing where every 50 repositories you have to suddenly pay 100$ extra. Edit: Forgot about bots, and deployment machine users (which even Github recommends for many scenarios)
- sdm 10y agoYup, #2 would hits us very hard. We have just over 40 people split between two organizations; everyone has access to Github and all have been trained to use it. Only about half are developers; are a lot of rules in a simple DSL that business analysts maintain and designer need to be able to update art and that's not even counting the bots. We have about as many Github users as repos -- we archive anything that's out of date to long term storage. If we are forced to switch to the new pricing model Github will likely lose us as a customer. The new model is just insanely expensive. The main reason we choose Github was the ability to have everyone use it. Feels like an outright cash grab honestly, especially with #4.
- 10y ago
- bfrog 10y agogithub, soon to be the next sourceforge
- alchemical 10y agoHonestly when I read the title I thought GH switched their business model and offered free users the ability to start a private repo, but this is not the case. If it is the case that I have to pay to have privacy on Github, then it imposes a privacy-rich versus privacy-poor dichotomy which I am uncomfortable with. Now I know as far as these things go (GH can be subject to National Security Letters), that GH is not really absolutely private. (Backdoors into people's 'secret' GISTS anyone?). GH had an opportunity here to change their business model so that free users can avail of private repos, and GH could still manage to bring in revenue. GH primarily makes the bulk of their income from what I call 'stakeholder accounts'. That is; those companies who simply couldn't function correctly if GH didn't exist. It is in these stakeholders that there is a symbiotic relationship of revenue for GH, and value for the stakeholder(s). There are very little lone private individuals who have that kind of symbiotic relationship, and so at least give these low income users the same equal rights of privacy as behemoth tech organizations. It makes sense. In terms of how GH gets revenue from these users, there are countless other ways to do this instead of relying on the monolithic device of a premium subscription model. Offer paid licenses for their proprietary GH clients. (A one off payment of $20.00 for the GH Windows client is something I would actually pay money for)...
- unethical_ban 10y agoWhat are you going on about? You're bringing in National Security Letters into a discussion about public vs. private repos on Github? Do you know what a threat model is? I wager they've kept people using public by default for several reasons, among them these: * It gives them something to upsell on. If you're not completely poor, giving $7/mo for a code repo is not unreasonable. Or, to price it in a more relatable manner, 1.5 mochas. * It encourages the "social coding" ecosystem. I believe the network effect of Github is the strongest thing keeping people using it instead of dispersing across Bitbucket/Gitlab/etc. a lot more. And as a simple point of disagreement, I think fewer people would pay for a Github client than a private Github repo. And why is charging for a client so much more ethical to you than charging for a service, with ongoing maintenance costs?
- pothibo 10y agoIt's 7$/month. You sure can be made uncomfortable easily. If someone wants a private repo but doesn't value his/her private code to the amount of 7$/month for ALL their private repos, then I guess it shouldn't have been made private in the first place. FWIW, a Big Mac combo is around the same price. One is junk, the other is where you showcase/store all your professionnal knowledge and experience.
- emodendroket 10y agoSo basically they're going to start using the same model as BitBucket?
- mark_l_watson 10y agoThis will help organizations that keep huge monolithic repos on GH - one of my customers does that. They have one repo that should be dozens of smaller repos. I use GH for my open source projects and code examples for my books and I use Bitbucket (which is also a great service) for my private repos. I have always felt somewhat guilty with this setup, working both companies for free services.
- tedmiston 10y ago> Over the next few days, we will automatically move all paid accounts, from Micro to Large, to the new plan. If you’re currently paying for one of those larger plans, look out for a prorated credit on your account. Bravo, GitHub.
- mattyohe 10y agoAll I ask is that Github implement Slack's Fair Billing Policy. Managing who at the organization can access a service is a silly task. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this follows that model. They're open to feedback: https://github.com/contact https://github.com/contact
- jackweirdy 10y agoI wasn't aware Slack had that model. It's really interesting. Here's the link for anyone else who wants to read: https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/218915077-Understanding-our-Fair-Billing-policy https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/218915077-Understan...
- cloudjacker 10y agobitbucket: still unlimited free private repositories
- mikey_p 10y agoI think this is great. I'm part of a small 2-person consultancy (my wife and I) and we've been abusing a user account for our business for sometime on the 'medium' plan since it would give us 20 private repos, although over the last 6 years, we're had to cycle stuff to backups, rotate it around in order to keep older client work in there. It's been hard to justify upgrading to an organization for awhile, since our work is hit or miss and we both have other jobs form time to time. We aren't much in terms of load on Github, but we'd like to be able to store 40-50 private repos or add more without worrying about our limit. The new organization pricing makes tons of sense for us since it's very close to the old 'medium' plan we were using, instead of being 2.5 times as much, which we never felt we could justify.
- benbenolson 10y agoThis is just another reason to move to something like Gitlab or just self-host your Git repos. It takes literally seconds to set up your own Git server, so why not?
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoLooks like with our company the price goes from $25 a month to $133 if we move (or are forced to move) over to the cost-per-user model. GitLab was already looking good, if we're forced to change well likely move to GitLab. Github's pricing was already overly expensive for what you get, in my opinion.
- jonmaim 10y agoSorry it's too late, I already migrated to bitbucket 6 months ago.
- rdancer 10y agoThis is an awful pricing model. ⇒ One-size-fits-all never fits all. Getting rid of tiers is naïve and misguided. Even if just for anchoring and the illusion of choice in face of terrible choices, tiers are a necessity. Sales will suffer, customer satisfaction will suffer. ⇒ I don't care if existing private customers pay the same or less. The price points should have been retained, and customers let to switch to a lower tier if they wished. Capturing consumer surplus leads to increased revenue. Github needs that money; the more money they throw away foolishly, the closer they are to bankruptcy. ⇒ "Starting today"?! At least current developer plans have been grandfathered in, with a 12-month notice period. Still, if an org has been in the process of planning a move to Github, they will have to re-evaluate. Github has been such a great platform. A major stumble like this, I'm worried they may not be with us for much longer.
- StevePerkins 10y agoTL;DR - GitHub is switching to Bitbucket's pricing model, but with a monthly charge of $9/user rather than $1/user. Seems bizarre to me. The "enterprise" market they're chasing are largely Atlassian customers already, and Bitbucket has a competitive edge there with its JIRA integration. GitHub's distinguishing characteristic was a different pricing model, that for some organizations makes more sense than Atlassian's does. If they start competing apples-to-apples, but at 9x the cost, why would any enterprise use GitHub unless they have a hipster CIO/CTO who just thinks it's a "cooler" brand?
- hrez 10y agoGithub is betting on stickiness aka lock-in. That might prove to be bad bet. Short term everybody who saves (small teams) will switch to new price model. No sane org will opt to multitude of price increase voluntarily. So github looses revenue short term. If github forces the switch on everybody many big orgs will jump the ship one way or another. So github looses again.
- danpalmer 10y agoI think the new pricing structure makes a lot of sense, however is awkwardly limiting in some respects that GitHub might not have considered. We have essentially 2 classes of GitHub user on our organisation - developers, and non-developers. While our devs use GitHub all the time (and therefore are worth the $25 a month for the development team), our other users might edit a specific few config files, or jobs pages (for example) once a month - paying $9/month each seems quite overpriced. We want to be an open company, one that doesn't keep secrets from employees, one that doesn't create unnecessary barriers to productivity, or have unnecessary process, so giving GitHub access to everyone in the company who wants it is important to us - this stops us from reasonably doing this. As a result, we likely won't be switching to the new pricing structure for as long as possible, which is a shame, because it would be nice to not have to think about private repos.
- wickedlogic 10y agoComments here are mostly from a single org view, due to the many X increase for that orgs price (large teams only)... but if I work on n_orgs repos, I'm now worth 9-25*n_orgs to github. That is a big shift from a model where I had no direct value to them as a unit.
- wickedlogic 10y agoWorth noting that for some (many) companies with large teams, this amounts to a new laptop or two in price change... and while a cost change, it really is noise (to some extent) for the value provided.
- ausjke 10y agobitbucket still sounds like a better deal as far as money goes, though github somehow catches all the eyeballs. bitbucket has been providing similar service for less since long time ago.
- andrewljohnson 10y agoHow many startups have a non-core-dev-advisor who they will now pay $9/month to get occasional comments from? Or not? One downside of this change is if you have a private Github org, you are now incentivized not to add advisors/randoms to your org/repos. I wonder how much scurrying Github sees to remove errant users from orgs.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- shepbook 10y agoI think this is a clear win for individual users that have been paying for GitHub. For organizations, I'm curious how many organizations they have just bumped above the $300-500/month mark. A lot of companies allow managers discretionary spending limits that they can spend without requesting approval, and if makes me wonder if they just made a bunch of managers need to start asking for approval for their GitHub bill. Another comment mentioned that having it filter up that the cost of a service just increase several times, will likely result in people being told to investigate alternatives. If that's the case, there are a fair number of alternatives to go to, depending on your specific situation.
- manigandham 10y agoIt's amazing how cheap people/companies are if they're complaining about these prices. $9/user/month for one of the best and easy-to-use platforms to store and manage your repos and help your software development, which for most companies is extremely important to their product. Slack is $8/user/month and yet people have no problem with that pricing. Git is also extremely portable and easy to move and takes minutes to self-host so what's the problem here?
- samstave 10y agoWell, I will say that this is a good thing, because when we had paid for ~20 repos at a last company, and eng made a new repo - number 21, that was then made public by default as we were out of private repos. FUCK THAT. He made a mistake and checked in (yes this is on him) an AWS access and secret. Within hours we have 1,500 machines launched in every region doing bitcoin mining.... Making a repo "public by default" is pure BS.
- alexchamberlain 10y agoThis is great for private accounts; it encourages better practice of smaller repos.
- derrekl 10y agoThere is one case we have where the newer per seat pricing doesn't facilitate how we're using github. One of our repositories is "docs" with a bunch of markdown files, pdfs, images, and other documents related to our tech. It's mostly used in a read only way by a bunch of non-developers while engineers contribute heavily to the documentation. Paying $9/month per biz person to be able to view the documentation is too much and will force that use case off to Confluence or some other wiki/documenting tool.
- gohrt 10y agoWhat's the delta from the old model?
- ArtDev 10y agoI will stick with GitLab.
- gshulegaard 10y agoSo...GitLab looks better and better every day.
- dblock 10y agoIf someone is unsure about this math, our (we're https://github.com/artsy https://github.com/artsy) bill goes up from 450$ to 1051$ per month. But it's not about just the money, it's about incentives. - We have large amounts of open-source code, so we were encouraged to open-source more to avoid jumping to the next tier. - We're going to probably close access to a bunch of code to a big chunk of our organization. We have hundreds of humans. Whereas before we would give them permissions to view as a default and hope they look at our code one day or at least know that they can, or sometimes would get a link to look at a change from a discussion, we'll now have to have to see whether it's worth 9x100s of people every month. I am not complaining, Github provides excellent service. Seems worth it at 5K$ a year and probably 10K$ a year, too. I wish it didn't just double though and was more gradual.
- kazinator 10y agoFor less than these price plans, you can have your own domain and server.
- NicoJuicy 10y agoI really don't understand why Github sets their prices higher while GitLab ( mostly) is gaining more and more traction...
- arc_of_descent 10y agoSo I have a normal user account at $7/month. Great, I now have unlimited private repos. I also had an organization a/c (only 1 user) at $9/month. I switched to the $25/month, so yes, its now costing me more. I understand math. Why not just give me $5/user? :)
- mikeflynn 10y agoSounds like a lot of companies are going to end up with multiple GitHub orgs.
- geostyx 10y agoI think I'll stick with my own private Gogs instance anyway.
- napperjabber 10y agoPretty sure this wont end well for Github. They seem to be making a lot of moves like this recently. It's only a matter of time until a mass migration begins IMO.
- Revisor 10y agoWhy don't more people use Assembla? We've used it for years and it has so many more features than Github. Tickets, milestones, time tracking, standup, wiki, unlimited repos with protected-branch merge rights, file sharing, discussions... There is no free plan but the pricing is fair in my opinion: https://www.assembla.com/plans https://www.assembla.com/plans
- thomascarney 10y agoIn the spirit of offering alternatives, we created a quick price calculator to show you whether you’d be better off moving from GitHub to Planio: https://plan.io/github-alternative/ https://plan.io/github-alternative/ But don’t hate us too much GitHub. We still love you :)