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

151–160 of 241 posts

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#151

Post by speedgoose »

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.

It was so much cheaper! I subscribed with the monthly plan instead of the yearly one thinking that the deal won’t last. It has last a bit longer than expected.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#152

Post by CGamesPlay »

timr wrote: post #70
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…

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…

Claude Code doesn't have an option to use Opus 4.6 any more for me. It was great, but I guess now I have to use it half as much or upgrade my subscription again.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#153

Post by HumanOstrich »

hx8 wrote: post #61
Marsymars wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why anyone would want to deal with Microsoft as a vendor if they don't have to. It can bill to our Azure sub and I don't have to go through the internal bureaucracy of purchasing a new product/service from a new vendor.

Bingo. Github Copilot is mostly for organizations that have an existing Azure bill and would rather see that go up then get a new vendor bill. Professional middlemen.

[flagged]

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#154

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#155

Post by krzyk »

selcuka wrote: post #72
rcleveng wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use claude code directly with a pro plan instead of copilot for roughly the same cost. On wait, nevermind. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47855565

> Just use claude code directly with a pro plan Usage limits are/were higher in Copilot. They also charge per prompt, not per token.

Well they charge per prompt, but with usage limits it is a mix of token and prompt. If prompt multiplier is higher, tokens are also multiplied, so limit is reached sooner.

It is basically a token based pricing, but you get alos a limitation of prompts (you can't just randomly ask questions to models, you have to optimize to make them do the most work for e.g. hour(s) without you replying - or ask them to use the question tool).

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#156

Post by krzyk »

maxloh wrote: post #133
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.

Some Opus models were free on Copilot, and in my country you cannot attach a repo to Gemini, that is limited to their premium offerings.

Which Opus models were free on Copilot?

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#158

Post by timr »

fy20 wrote: post #139
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…

I think the reason is two fold: - If you pay for unlimited trips will you choose the Ferrari or the old VW? Both are waiting outside your door, ready to go. - Providers that let you choose models don't really price much difference between lower class models. On my grandfathered Cursor plan I pay 1x request to use Composer 2 or 2x request to use Opus 4.6. Until the price is more differentiated so people can say "ok ye…

Agreed on both points. We’re dealing with a cost/benefit analysis, and to this point, coders have been subsidized, coerced…maybe even mandated into using the most expensive option as if it was a limitless resource. Clearly not true, and so of course we’re going to see nerfing of the tools over time.

Obviously we’re a long way away from being able to rationally evaluate whether the value of X tokens in model Y is better than model Z, let alone better in terms of developer cost, but that’s kind of where we need to get to, otherwise the model providers are selling magic beans rated in ineffable units of magicalness. The only rational behavior in such a world is to gorge yourself.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#159

Post by HumanOstrich »

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.

They don't show your usage in tokens for Claude Code and Codex subscriptions, but that is how they are doing the accounting.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#160

Post by aulin »

rafaelmn wrote: post #140

> it’s now common for a handful of requests to incur costs that exceed the plan price Pricing per turn/request was/is an idiotic model and I'm glad they are paying for it. It just forces you into a workflow just to work around business model. Heck the best laugh would be to create a plan outside vscode with interactive CC/Codex then copy paste into GH copilot to do a single session burn of few M tokens. Again ridicul…

So far they did not change it, and none of this applies to business and enterprise accounts. My idea is that it can still be viable as most businesses will have plenty minimally used licenses with just a few power users abusing the request model.
Post reply on HN