Live data from Hacker News

GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

twitter.com

31–40 of 133 posts

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#31

1. Announce price increase generating bad publicity. 2. Kill bad publicity with blog pretending to be understanding and taking on feedback while "pausing" the increase. 3. Implement price increase a few months later when the bad publicity wave is over, and its old news so wont generate new headlines.

Sounds like Chat Control.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#33

1. Announce price increase generating bad publicity. 2. Kill bad publicity with blog pretending to be understanding and taking on feedback while "pausing" the increase. 3. Implement price increase a few months later when the bad publicity wave is over, and its old news so wont generate new headlines.

Nah, that doesn’t work when the substance of the change is this intense and has an actual effect on peoples’ bottom lines. If they wait a few months and try again, people will see their bills go up immediately and they’ll all get mad again. I don’t know what GH will do next, but if they try to do that, it will definitely backfire.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#34
post #25

> GitHub stated that it has canceled the price increase after reviewing developer feedback. It added that it will take time to listen to customers and partners. I get the feeling they got the feedback that their runners are not as indispensable to developers as they thought and realized they would lose a significant amount of users. Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copil…

I've already jumped ship. Switching source control host was actually pretty easy. Builds still working just fine.

Great! Who did you jump to ?

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#35
Outside of work, I'm a very sporadic coder. On some side-projects where I'm using Actions, I'll have an inspired few days of progress followed by completely idle weeks/months/quarters.

Losing free Actions doesn't particularly bother me, and I have no issue with paying what is most likely a negligible amount, but I don't really want to have a credit card on file which could be charged some unbounded amount if somebody gets into my account. I've shut down my personal AWS for similar reasons.

Is there any way of me just loading up a one-time $20? That will probably last well into 2027, and give me the peace of mind that I can just let it run. If my account's compromised, or I misconfigure something that goes wild, I am perfectly happy to write off that amount and have my incredibly-low-stakes toy projects fail to build.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#37
post #33

1. Announce price increase generating bad publicity. 2. Kill bad publicity with blog pretending to be understanding and taking on feedback while "pausing" the increase. 3. Implement price increase a few months later when the bad publicity wave is over, and its old news so wont generate new headlines.

Nah, that doesn’t work when the substance of the change is this intense and has an actual effect on peoples’ bottom lines. If they wait a few months and try again, people will see their bills go up immediately and they’ll all get mad again. I don’t know what GH will do next, but if they try to do that, it will definitely backfire.

sounds like it's time to increase their vendor lock in then an make sure they are not as compatible with other solutions.

I fear this would be the obvious conclusion.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#38
post #25

> GitHub stated that it has canceled the price increase after reviewing developer feedback. It added that it will take time to listen to customers and partners. I get the feeling they got the feedback that their runners are not as indispensable to developers as they thought and realized they would lose a significant amount of users. Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copil…

I wonder if Microsoft will ever get that asking users before making changes can help them avoid looking bad in public.

Maybe half of all clients I work with use GitHub Actions for CI (the rest basically all use Jenkins), most of those using Actions use self-hosted runners for performance and security reasons, almost all of them reached out to me asking how difficult it would be to move away from GitHub Actions yet continue using GitHub.

Do you think these companies now suddenly stop wanting to move away from GitHub Actions because Microsoft suddenly changed their mind? I don't think so, probably less priority, but it will happen, because now the cat is out of the bag.

If they'd just do user research before announcing changes and not use announcements as "testing the waters", I'm sure they'd see a lot less churn. But I guess some number counting team somewhere in Microsoft figured out they'd make more money by charging people to run software on their own hardware, so maybe I'm just dreaming.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#39

1. Announce price increase generating bad publicity. 2. Kill bad publicity with blog pretending to be understanding and taking on feedback while "pausing" the increase. 3. Implement price increase a few months later when the bad publicity wave is over, and its old news so wont generate new headlines.

No. There is real serious money involved here. Usually, the people who self-host are maxing their runners (otherwise it makes more sense to use minute billing). So this will affect them by roughly doubling their servers cost. Think if some company had a $15K/month bill in self-runners, they'll now also get a $15k/month additional bill from GitHub.

Many people will switch for that kind of money.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've already jumped ship. Switching source control host was actually pretty easy. Builds still working just fine.

Great! Who did you jump to ?

The most obvious "all-in-one" package is GitLab, if you have the hardware for it and don't mind bit of bloat but all the needed features in one package.

Personally, for smaller scale projects that still require collaboration over the web, Gitea/Forgejo + Woodpecker CI has been a really simple, lightweight and easy to maintain solution.

Post reply on HN