51–60 of 90 posts
I think the reason its priced like that is its far more profitable than any other way. Developers like loads of repo's for their many side projects etc. Just a note though, if you're a consulting company and cant afford $200 a month for the 125 repo's, you should be charging more.
Why should we pay 200$ a month though when there's a competitor with a far better plan?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of interest, how would you say you compare to BitBucket? Your given plan structures seem to suggest that their pricing structure per user is superior. "A startup with 30 repos and a team of two is completely free." Same with them. "A professional plan with 60 repos and 5 collaborators is $9 per month." 5 collaborators is free with them. "A business plan 150 repos and 10 collaborators is $72 per month." BitBucket…
Thank you for the question. We want to make sure that the pricing only increases in small steps. If you add one more user you should never go from $25 to $50. We also have a free issue tracker, you don't have to pay for it. Jira prices are 4 times more expensive than BitBucket prices. And of course there is the option to go self hosted easily in the future. What do you think we can improve in the pricing of GitLab.co…
Your idea of only increasing in small steps is interesting, and I can see why you'd do it like that. I imagine $1/user fully scaling is probably impossible - it's probably unfair to compete when Atlassian might even be running Bitbucket at a loss and you presumably have no other major products under the same company. I can see how you'd be better value in some way at certain boundaries in price points - but I'm not convinced you'd ever become cheaper. I haven't drawn the graph, but if you used the full 25-50 jump, going from 25-50 users eventually, thats a $75 increase on your service. I see where you're coming from, but the scalar of 3x per user is probably too high for them jumps to become significant.
Fair enough, Bitbucket does have a free one, but I haven't used Jira which is obviously more powerful. You may well be better there.
And again, allowing self hosting is a really cool move. I'd definitely consider it because I think the cost, even with Bitbucket, would soon become significant compared to the one time cost of a server.
In all honesty, I might be being completely unfair. I'm comparing Bitbucket alone and it's main options. You have teams, Bitbucket does, but yours could well be better - maybe Atlassian's Confluence is a fairer comparison. Same with issue tracking, Bitbucket does have it, but maybe you compare better with Jira. If you would say your service compares fairly to Bitbucket, though, I don't really know how you can improve it short of cutting the $3/user/month, which I imagine isn't a reasonable request. If that's not going to happen, which I'd expect is the case, the way you scale is probably fairest.
I would say to look at the business package and what you're offering though - if it competes with Confluence you're priced fairly, but if it competes with Bitbucket's standard team features, I think that's significantly overpriced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the question. We want to make sure that the pricing only increases in small steps. If you add one more user you should never go from $25 to $50. We also have a free issue tracker, you don't have to pay for it. Jira prices are 4 times more expensive than BitBucket prices. And of course there is the option to go self hosted easily in the future. What do you think we can improve in the pricing of GitLab.co…
Not to put you off, but more to provide an interesting case study.. patio11 wrote about the difference between configurable/scalable pricing and fixed plans recently: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/08/13/doubling-saas-revenue/
We've also been discussing this recently where I work. Our problem is that the small wordpress projects quickly eat up the repo quota. The price isn't a problem, but their largest plan only gives 125 repos, which we'll reach relatively quick at this rate. Enterprise is not an option, as we're not really interested in hosting and maintaining it ourselves. They do however say "If you need a plan larger than Platinum, c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Github enterprise version is unrealistically expensive. We (a dutch 'embedded' software company of about 300 developers) currently use SVN for our version control. We use some tool, of which I forgot the name, to simplify managing repositories and permissions. This costs us a couple of hours per year in maintenance and support, and the tool cost somewhere around 1500 euro. Hours go for around 80 euro's here, so l…
When I learned about GitHub Enterprise I was very happy thinking that we can finally switch to Git (currently we use SVN) only to be saddened by their pricing. We have around 5000 employees, GitHub price for 500 seats is 125,000$, this is incredibly expensive. Judging by their pricing they don't want big companies to be their clients as simple as that. Atlassian for example had a lot of grief with us simply because t…
Their enterprise pricing is probably designed for under a 100 employees.
No one is going to make you commit to a contract or bite your hand off if you ask them if they can go cheaper.
So from one consultant to another consultant, what do you say when a potential client starts to say "Actually, we don't think we can do this engagement, because $X is too much" where $X is some number in three digits?
I use both: I stick my private repos up on Bitbucket (where I don't need to show them to anyone, and thus pay nothing), and my public repos on Github (where I don't need to hide them from anyone, and thus pay nothing.) And I don't miss Github's collaborative features in my private repos because I'm not collaborating in those :) Bitbucket is literally just "a place to push my repo where it'll be safe" for me[1]; Githu…
Yep, this is exactly what I do. Though I will start collaborating on a private project beginning June and I am not sure how Bitbucket fares in that regard? Any experience with that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely agreed - I use BitBucket to store some private projects, which also means I don't pay them anything (yet). Seems not terribly profitable - I keep a backup elsewhere assuming Bitbucket will go down eventually from lack of funds!
I wouldn't worry so much about that. Seems like Bitbucket was acquired by Atlassian for two reasons: 1. Free DCVS hosting as a free perk to existing customers, with tight integration to existing Atlassian products. 2. Free DCVS hosting to non-customers, with the hopes of converting some to the Atlassian suite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the question. We want to make sure that the pricing only increases in small steps. If you add one more user you should never go from $25 to $50. We also have a free issue tracker, you don't have to pay for it. Jira prices are 4 times more expensive than BitBucket prices. And of course there is the option to go self hosted easily in the future. What do you think we can improve in the pricing of GitLab.co…
Thanks for replying. Your idea of only increasing in small steps is interesting, and I can see why you'd do it like that. I imagine $1/user fully scaling is probably impossible - it's probably unfair to compete when Atlassian might even be running Bitbucket at a loss and you presumably have no other major products under the same company. I can see how you'd be better value in some way at certain boundaries in price p…
I guess that "might even be running Bitbucket at a loss" makes it hard to compete with Bitbucket on price. And Bitbucket is a good product and Atlassian is a great company. I don't think GitLab should be compared with Confluence.
Maybe I'll switch GitLab to a simple plan based pricing model and compete on its strengths: 1) Advanced permissions 2) Can run your own server for free if you ever need to 3) CI server integration with GitLab CI (coming soon)
What do you think?