1. Take a gazillion dollars in funding on an over-hyped valuation,<p>2. Go through significant organizational changes that end up with the departure of a co-founder (and more suits in the building).<p>3. Notice that a significant segment of your growth (VC-funded startups) are running out of money.<p>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".<p>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.<p>But I'd appreciate if their PR department didn't expect us to swallow this as a positive change. Most coders understand basic maths.
A small comparison:<p>Team | Cost Before | Cost Now<p>1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25<p>1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70<p>11 repos, 5 users | $50 | $25<p>11 repos, 10 users | $50 | $70<p>5 repos, 50 users | $25 | $430<p>50 repos, 5 users | $100 | $25<p>50 repos, 50 users | $100 | $430<p>I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and future requests from clients) fall into this category, but who else?<p>The other case where it becomes cheaper is personal accounts.<p>In all the other cases - it just looks like a raise of prices.
The incentive changes for this are so massive, nice "experiment" from an economics perspective.<p>1. penalizes OpenSource organizations that need a few private repos for password, server configuration or other things. Was 25$ before, now for example Doctrine with 48 collaborators it would be 394$. Even if just the admins have access to that repository.<p>2. penalizes collaboration, inviting every non-technical person in the company? 2-5 employees of the customer? not really. Will lead organizations to create a single "non-technical" user that everyone can use to comment on stuff. not to mention bots, especially since you need users for servers in more complex deployment scenarios.<p>3. rewards having many repos, small throw away stuff and generally will lead to "messy" repositories lying around everywhere that are committed on once or twice and never touched again. "Not having to think about another private repository", imho will produce technical debt for organizations.<p>4. users in many private orgs will need to pay or get paid for every organization each. I myself will be worth 45$ now for Github, being in private repositories of five different companies.<p>All in all, this just shows that Github does not care as much about open source anymore as it cares about Enterprise.<p>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.<p>Edit: Forgot about bots, and deployment machine users (which even Github recommends for many scenarios)
What about companies like Epic Games that have few repos but many users?<p>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...<p>edit: That's based on what I can see as a UE4 subscriber, 2 private repos and 90657 users.
I 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?<p>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.<p>One thing I don't get however: how do they count shared access to private repos?<p>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?<p>They say "you can even invite a few collaborators" -- but how are you billed if it's more than a "few?"<p>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.
That'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.
What'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.<p>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.<p>The band of companies between small shops and enterprises are likely to be affected, but then this is really employee lunch money.
This is, of course, a positive way to spin the fact that they're raising prices significantly for many organizations.<p>I'm glad there's at least a year that we can keep using the old plans.
This 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.<p>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.
With this change, BitBucket pricing [0] gets to appear pretty attractive.<p>(If you were an organization with few private repositories and large number of users, Github was earlier more affordable.)<p>[0] <a href="https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=cloud-pricing" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=cloud-pricing</a>
Nothing beats <a href="https://bitbucket.org/" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket.org/</a> 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.
Have 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.<p>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.
I see absolutely no reason why one would pay GitHub for private repositories when there is Bitbucket, or much better alternative to GitHub altogether - GitLab.
It 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).
This is absolutely fucking atrocious news for any company who wants to run an agile operation.<p>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.<p>But now they've fucked up.<p>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
This is an awful pricing model.<p>⇒ 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.<p>⇒ 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.<p>⇒ "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.<p>Github has been such a great platform. A major stumble like this, I'm worried they may not be with us for much longer.
Does 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.<p>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.<p>/edit: <a href="https://github.com/pricing" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/pricing</a> makes it sound like this is for free student plans as well
It would be interesting to know how many users and repositories a typical organization has on Github.<p>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".<p>That said, SaaS pricing is really hard to get right from the beginning. I run a code analysis company (<a href="https://www.quantifiedcode.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.quantifiedcode.com</a>) 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.<p>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)
I 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).<p>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.<p>Lets not forget about the obvious negatives of Github (ignoring pricing).<p>1) Its hosted which means it can go down
2) It is closed source
3) Feature based is quite small (compared to Gitlab)<p>Gitlab is a regular release cycle, once a month which always comes with new features.<p>I personally think it is a no brainer.
Now 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.
The 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.<p>I really hope the old plans stay around as long as possible.<p>Also, consider external collaborators that are part of multiple organizations: Github will now receive the $9/month per external collaborator and organization they are in. That's one hell of a deal for github.
Pretty angry that Github have made this change with no mechanism for adding machine users without paying a per month charge. It seems like a key feature, which is currently horribly painful to manage and now expensive.<p>How does everyone else create credentials that CI can use to checkout code?
If you happen to be a group that will be affected negatively by this move because you have a need for read-only users...<p>Gogs has mirror functionality where you could self-host access for those users in a fairly painless way. Screenshot of import screen: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/J4vWCIB.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/J4vWCIB.png</a><p>More on gogs here: <a href="https://github.com/gogits/gogs" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/gogits/gogs</a><p>(no association with gogs, just thought it might be helpful)
The number of very small teams or individuals this encourages to start using github probably allows every organization who can't afford this to leave and github to still increase the money they're making. It seems like a good move based on my imagined profile of their user base. 1 million teens and young 20-somethings just decided they'll give 7$ a month to github.<p>For bigger organizations, this is practically no money compared to other software they're using. So they'll just take the hit.<p>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.<p>I think the question is why this took so long.
TL;DR - GitHub is switching to Bitbucket's pricing model, but with a monthly charge of $9/user rather than $1/user.<p>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.<p>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?
Hopefully this opens the eyes of at least <i>some</i> people into realising that GitHib !== git, and GitHub !== dvcs (similarly, git !== dvcs). There are several alternatives out there, almost all of which provide <i>more</i> options at <i>lower</i> cost than GitHub.<p>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.
Its 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.
Github is... adopting the old Visual Studio logo?<p><a href="http://static.flickr.com/2768/4307936121_5b5e51a790.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://static.flickr.com/2768/4307936121_5b5e51a790.jpg</a>
As 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.<p>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.<p>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...
I'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.
So 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 $thousands/year then surely migrating to another git repo provider is worth it?
All I ask is that Github implement Slack's Fair Billing Policy. Managing who at the organization can access a service is a silly task.<p>Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this follows that model. They're open to feedback: <a href="https://github.com/contact" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/contact</a>
Wow. Companies definitely suffer. For me ( freelancing dev, working primarily with startups ) it's a huge win.<p>GitHub vs BitBucket was always about :<p>1) 3rd party integrations ( CircleCI - e.g. ) - sadly bitbucket is behind that.<p>2) Issue management. Bitbucket's default behavior doesn't support labels or any other way of managing the issues structure.<p>Now, honestly CircleCI + GitHub for 7$ is just extremely cheap. ( talking solo devs / small teams ).
This is way too expensive! Self-hosted GitLab is cheaper and has better uptime!<p>Not to mention, they should have made you pay only for users with commit rights!
For comparison, quoting from the AWS CodeCommit pricing page...<p>AWS CodeCommit costs:<p>$1 per active user per month
For every active user, your account receives for that month:<p>10 GB-month of storage<p>2,000 Git requests<p>And the 1 year free tier is:<p>5 active users
50 GB-month of storage
10,000 Git requests
The main image on that page looks remarkably similar to the 2010 Visual Studio logo:<p><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/samer/archive/2010/01/27/quick-share-the-history-of-visual-studio.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/samer/archive/2010/01/27/quick-share...</a>
How many startups have a non-core-dev-advisor who they will now pay $9/month to get occasional comments from? Or not?<p>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.
This 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.<p>Although I can very much see how it could go the other way.
Thank 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.<p>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.
While unlimited private repositories sounds good, this change means that our GitHub costs are now 2.3x higher.<p>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.
There is an element of "double dipping" here that I see as a problem.<p>I already pay $7 a month for my own personal Github account, and for me personally it's nice to have no limit.<p>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.<p>Even if they removed me from the organisation and added me as a collaborator this will be an additional cost.<p>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.
But 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.<p>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?<p>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.
Finally! 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.
The 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.
Links not up yet, but you can already switch your plan <a href="https://github.com/organizations/your_org/settings/billing/per_seat" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/organizations/your_org/settings/billing/p...</a> 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!)
This change was beneficial to me.<p>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.<p>(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.)
Well, 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.<p>He made a mistake and checked in (yes this is on him) an AWS access and secret.<p>Within hours we have 1,500 machines launched in every region doing bitcoin mining....<p>Making a repo "public by default" is pure BS.
This 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.<p>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.
I think the new pricing structure makes a lot of sense, however is awkwardly limiting in some respects that GitHub might not have considered.<p>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 $9/month each seems quite overpriced.<p>We want to be an open company, one that doesn't keep secrets from employees, one that doesn't create unnecessary barriers to productivity, or have unnecessary process, so giving GitHub access to everyone in the company who wants it is important to us - this stops us from reasonably doing this. As a result, we likely won't be switching to the new pricing structure for as long as possible, which is a shame, because it would be nice to not have to think about private repos.
If someone is unsure about this math, our (we're <a href="https://github.com/artsy" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/artsy</a>) bill goes up from 450$ to 1051$ per month.<p>But it's not about just the money, it's about incentives.<p>- We have large amounts of open-source code, so we were encouraged to open-source more to avoid jumping to the next tier.<p>- 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.<p>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.
I 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.<p>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!
I 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.
Is 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.
The main drawback of a lot of Cloud based business model I have seen is that nobody think its fine to pay for leechers.<p>The per user pricing is pretty reasonable but only when you think of seeders (publishers/editors/pushers call them as you like).<p>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...
There 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.
We 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.
It's amazing how cheap people/companies are if they're complaining about these prices.<p>$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.<p>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?
This is awesome! I have wanted a different pricing structure for personal accounts for a long time.<p>And for those who have issues with the organizational changes, did you see?<p>> I am an existing organization customer and prefer the per-repository plans. Can I remain on my current plan?<p>> 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.
Why 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...<p>There is no free plan but the pricing is fair in my opinion:
<a href="https://www.assembla.com/plans" rel="nofollow">https://www.assembla.com/plans</a>
That 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.<p>It might make sense however to not count collaborators with read-only access.<p>Of course, now that I have gitlab, there's very little reason for me to come back.
In 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: <a href="https://plan.io/github-alternative/" rel="nofollow">https://plan.io/github-alternative/</a><p>But don’t hate us too much GitHub. We still love you :)
I 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 <a href="https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing</a>
I 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 <a href="https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing</a>
Looks 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.<p>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.
Comments 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.
I 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.
So I have a normal user account at $7/month. Great, I now have unlimited private repos.<p>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.<p>I understand math. Why not just give me $5/user? :)
I 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.<p>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.
> 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.<p>Bravo, GitHub.
bitbucket 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.
I'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.
Pretty 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.
This 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?
What'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.
Definitely cool, but I honestly think that if your organisation needs more than a handful of repositories then it's very likely doing something wrong.
I'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.
Everyone 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.
Honestly when I read the title I thought GH switched their business model and offered <i>free</i> users the ability to start a private repo, but this is not the case.<p>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?).<p>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).<p>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.<p>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)...