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

Introducing unlimited private repositories

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#171

Post by cstejerean »

hunvreus wrote: post #130

1. 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 un…

Per user pricing makes a lot more sense than per repo pricing. This way larger organizations pay more money than smaller ones regardless of how they structure their code.

This is a good deal for small organizations that like to have many small repositories (for internal libraries, utilities, micro services, modules, etc).

Sure, it screws up a few models that rely on external collaborators to get access to private repos, but those can stick with the old model for a while (at least 12 months). And in the meantime GitHub may adjust their model to accommodate those situations too.

Lastly, this is a huge freebie for individual accounts that now get unlimited repos for $7/month. That will benefit a lot of people.

So I don't see this as PR spinning, but rather as an overdue move on github's part to a model that makes a lot more sense and benefits small organizations and individuals.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#174

Post by ThatPlayer »

romanovcode wrote: post #83

I see absolutely no reason why one would pay GitHub for private repositories when there is Bitbucket, or much better alternative to GitHub altogether - GitLab.

When people mention GitLab I always wonder if you mean the public hosted GitLab, or running your own GitLab.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#175

Post by sudhirj »

What's with all the negativity? This is really good pricing - all individuals now pay much less (a flat rate of $7), all small shops pay almost the same thing ($30 to $90 for 3 to 10 people). Both groups no longer need to think twice about creating repos, which has always been a huge pain that I've seen. I've even thought twice about microservices because the repo cost would be a pain.

This will affect enterprises - but then they're either already on Github Enterprise or are used to per user pricing anyway. Google Apps, Slack etc all have (quantitavely similar) per user pricing. Google doesn't charge you based on the number of emails you send, nor does Slack charge based on the number of private rooms there are - that would be dumb.

The band of companies between small shops and enterprises are likely to be affected, but then this is really employee lunch money.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#176

Post by dommer »

Xylakant wrote: post #168
wukerplank wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd fire the PR department if they didn't give this a positive spin.

That doesn't mean that customers can't be annoyed being sold for stupid. The release announcement forgets to mention that collaborators are now costly - either a stupid oversight or part of the positive spin. A good marketing department should display things in a positive fashion, but they should also strive to be honest, so they're not loosing credibility.

"loosing credibility" is subjective in this case. Some orgs/people will be better off, some won't.

I recall GitHub doing some extensive research on what their customer based wanted. This is most likely the outcome of that research.

If I were to migration our org. over we would be worse off. Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. Poorly thought through perhaps?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#177

Post by arnvald »

daemin wrote: post #145
arnvald wrote: post #40

A small comparison: Team | Cost Before | Cost Now 1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25 1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70 11 repos, 5 users | $50 | $25 11 repos, 10 users | $50 | $70 5 repos, 50 users | $25 | $430 50 repos, 5 users | $100 | $25 50 repos, 50 users | $100 | $430 I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and fut…

The last few places that I worked at only had one big repository hosting all of the projects. They weren't using Git though, SVN and Perforce. In some ways I can see the ability to have fewer users and more repositories suited towards consultancies (specifically web development). Where there are a lot of projects and customers.

Yeah, I worked at a company that used one big repository for all their software. It wasn't to save money (they were spending quite a lot of money on other tools), but it was just more comfortable for them - in terms of code management, deployment etc. But still, with the old Github pricing, they were paying just a few bucks for a team of 10 people, so in this case getting paid per user makes much more sense.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#178

Post by vacri »

nxzero wrote: post #148
hunvreus wrote: post #130

1. 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 un…

Compared to products like Salesforce, GitHub seems cheap to me. What to you is a fair price and why?

> GitHub seems cheap to me

At $9/user/mo, github is 900% more expensive than the $1/user/mo direct competitor BitBucket. BitBucket uses brackets rather than pure scaling, but their most expensive option - 101 users require the $200 unlimited accounts plan - is still only $2/user.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#179

Post by vacri »

me_bx wrote: post #133
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify? Why is Bitbucket "terrible"?

He probably means in terms of general usability. This is the reason why I don't use bitbucket at all, and I'm happy to give some money to github in exchange for their service. Bitbucket's issue tracker is such a pain to work with. I remember being redirected to a new page whenever I had to create a new tag. Then I'd loose the content of the issue I had started to write, something like that.

I've found github better for open source projects, and bitbucket better for businesses. Github only just recently introduced the idea that one 'deploy key' could be used on more than one repo(!), for example, not to mention that deploy keys had full write access.

User management - more important for a business - is much nicer on BitBucket, and was the specific reason why we shifted. And it will continue to be nicer, until they infect BitBucket with the same user management mess that blights Jira/Confluence. :)

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#180

Post by tanepiper »

There is an element of "double dipping" here that I see as a problem.

I already pay $7 a month for my own personal Github account, and for me personally it's nice to have no limit.

But if we switch to the new model at work then not only am I paying my $7, but my company will have to pay an additional $9p/m for me to have access to the repos I use daily for work.

Even if they removed me from the organisation and added me as a collaborator this will be an additional cost.

They can spin it how they like but I suspect for a large number of organisations they are going to see quite an increase in cost from using Github.

Post reply on HN