Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 241 posts

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#121

Post by Spoom »

girvo wrote: post #93
hypercube33 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a citation on this? I have a Claude Pro subscription and looked at the comparison page and it says this under Pro: Everything in Free and: Claude Code directly in your codebase Power through tasks with Cowork Higher usage limits Deep research and analysis Memory that carries across conversations

Go to the pricing page: https://claude.com/pricing

As of right now, it says Pro includes Code and Cowork. (At least, for me. There could always be A/B testing going on.)

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#122

Post by jeremyjh »

Incipient wrote: post #119
jeremyjh wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copilot is pretty unique in that they were only measuring requests, and that model is just broken for agentic systems.

CC wasn't per-token either? Nor is Codex? From my simple checks - and from Microsoft's own blog - per token pricing isn't going to be realistic for agentic coding either.

Claude Code is definitely token based, its been discussed extensively on Hacker News and the related Github threads. A large context cache miss can take half your usage easily in just one request... "max" just means more reasoning tokens. I've also run out of usage during a single request in CoWork. Its definitely token based.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#123

Post by macintux »

timr wrote: post #100
zdragnar wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's really helpful to tell people they're holding it wrong, especially when you hear the problem a lot. Maybe, just maybe, the tool isn't suitable for all problem spaces.

> I don't think it's really helpful to tell people they're holding it wrong I’m not saying that. If anything, it really doesn’t matter much what model you use, and it’s only a case of “you’re holding it wrong” in the sense that you have to use your brain to write code, and that if you outsource your thinking to a machine, that’s the fundamental mistake. In other words, it’s a tool, not a magic wand. So yeah, you do h…

“Everyone is special” is a snarky, derogatory comment we don’t need here.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#124

Post by bandrami »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #83
hx8 wrote: post #54

I really dislike these AI middleman plans. The value-add that Microsoft brings to Github Copilot is near zero compared to directly buying from Anthropic or OpenAI, where 99% of the value is being delivered from. I don't understand why anyone would want to deal with Microsoft as a vendor if they don't have to. The short period of discounted usage was always the obvious rug pull.

Except Copilot doesnt bill you per token like all those companies do, they bill you per prompt, at least Copilot in Visual Studio 2026 which is insane to me, are they just hosting all those models and able to reduce costs of doing so?

No, like every other provider they're just losing money and hoping this will some day magically become profitable

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#125

Post by eshack94 »

alexaholic wrote: post #28

I have a GitHub Pro subscription, renewed for the 2nd year, and I just found out I can no longer use Opus with it. Opus was one of the reasons I had a subscription in the first place. Opus 4.6 had a 3x multiplier in Pro. Now the new Opus 4.7 model has 7.5x in Pro+, which offers 5x more requests, but costs 4x more than Pro. So now Opus is essentially 2x the price it used to be. It’s likely that Sonnet 4.7 will be the…

I'm in the same boat as you. Wish I had known this before my subscription renewed. There's no longer any value in paying them for this service when I can cut them out of the equation and pay the model providers directly.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#126

Post by kingstnap »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #83
hx8 wrote: post #54

I really dislike these AI middleman plans. The value-add that Microsoft brings to Github Copilot is near zero compared to directly buying from Anthropic or OpenAI, where 99% of the value is being delivered from. I don't understand why anyone would want to deal with Microsoft as a vendor if they don't have to. The short period of discounted usage was always the obvious rug pull.

Except Copilot doesnt bill you per token like all those companies do, they bill you per prompt, at least Copilot in Visual Studio 2026 which is insane to me, are they just hosting all those models and able to reduce costs of doing so?

No they are taking the massive L. Thats why they paused new sign ups.

Just for context to the insanity, they allow recursive subagents to I believe its 5 levels deep.

You can make a prompt and tell copilot to dig through a code base, have one sub agent per file, and one Recursive subagent per function, to do some complex codebase wide audit. If you use Opus 4.7 to do this it consumes a grand total of 0.5% of a Pro+ plan.

Thats why this paragraph is here:

> it’s now common for a handful of requests to incur costs that exceed the plan price

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#127

Post by timr »

macintux wrote: post #123
timr wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it's really helpful to tell people they're holding it wrong I’m not saying that. If anything, it really doesn’t matter much what model you use, and it’s only a case of “you’re holding it wrong” in the sense that you have to use your brain to write code, and that if you outsource your thinking to a machine, that’s the fundamental mistake. In other words, it’s a tool, not a magic wand. So yeah, you do h…

“Everyone is special” is a snarky, derogatory comment we don’t need here.

It’s not snarky. It’s literally the argument people are making: I am special, my use case is exceptional, therefore I need to use the special tool, even if you don’t need to.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#128

Post by girvo »

bwat49 wrote: post #120
girvo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to https://claude.com/pricing it no longer is. They’ve explicitly updated that page to exclude it (it was on there before)

its showing claude code as included in pro now on that page

Apparently if you believe them it was a “test”

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#129

Post by Vegenoid »

anabis wrote: post #101
timr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the comments here drives home an industry wide problem with these tools: people are just using the latest and most expensive models because they can , and because they’re cargo-culting. This is perhaps the first time that software has had this kind of problem, and coders are not exactly demonstrating great discretionary decision making. I’ve been using Anthropic models exclusively for the last month on a larg…

AI should decide the level of model needed, and fallback if it fails. It mostly is a UX problem. Why do I need to specify the level of model beforehand? Many problems don't allow decision pre-implementation.

This would require LLMs being good at knowing when they are doing a bad job, which they are still terrible at. With a good testing and verification harness set up, sure, then it could just go to a more powerful model if it can't make tests pass. But not a lot of usage is like this.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#130

Post by computerex »

timr wrote: post #105
computerex wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Model selection for day to day tasks based on vibes is not very scientific. Micromanaging the model doesn't seem like a great idea when doing real professional work with professional goals/deadlines/pressures.

It’s deeply ironic that the folks who want to outsource as much thought to the model as possible are saying that my stance - use your brain to decide the right tool for the job - is tantamount to “vibes”.

You are being deeply reductive and that's against the spirit of hacker news. The issue is that models are difficult to objectively benchmark. The benchmarks don't always align with real world performance. It's not easy and clear cut to determine which model will work best in a given situation. It boils down to loose experiences/anecdotes. Do you have an objective criteria for model selection that you have tested to be effective with reproducible tests?
Post reply on HN