Very cleverly worded to sound like a price reduction when it's actually a price increase.
Introducing unlimited private repositories
121–130 of 662 posts
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#122The 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.
It will attract more small companies and freelance single developers as well.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? 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.
Oh, come on. It's OK to dislike this change, but "BitBucket is superior in every respect" and "price gouging" are far from objectively obvious.
Well look at the price changes people posting here are facing, ones from $2k a year to $8k, that's gouging!
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#124Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#125I 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.
Why use the derogaroty 'too cheap'? Maybe they are just not 'too stupid' to pay more than they have to.
"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.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#126That'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.
Same here. That's the cool thing about Git. Everyone uses the same "protocol" so you can simply move your stuff around.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#127Now 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.
git 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)
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#128I'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.
Why? 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.
BitBucket is okay, but not superior in any way.
It's cheaper and has private repos for free and that's it.
The UI is clunky and the community is much smaller than Githubs.
I also don't understand why they try to sell it with the Jira integration as if it was a good thing. The only people I heard saying good things about Jira and this marketplace where working on companies that sold stuff there.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even for software houses, it's VERY problematic as we add customers to projects as external collaborators and we're going to get billed for that forever, even if most customers have very light usage, and even for non active projects. I was thrilled by this news but it's going to be completely unaffordable for us. We have 29 users and 51 external collaborators. We have recently upgraded to the Platinum plan ($2460/yr)…
I keep my eye on Microsoft's Visual Studio Team Services. It has a bit of a clunky name and aimed more at enterprises but I think at some point they will position it as a competitor to GitHub. It's free for the first five developers, and no charge for "stakeholder" user accounts. https://www.visualstudio.com/pricing/visual-studio-team-serv... So 29 users would be $182/m (check my maths) and you'd pay nothing for the…
If you no longer want/need the social aspects of GitHub, you can just move to GitLab. Much more affordable and you can self host it yourself. We have an on premise GitLab installation. Besides the rare upgrade, it's pretty hands off. And it's costing us $0 in licensing fees for over 60 users ;-)
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#1301. 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.