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

211–220 of 241 posts

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#211

Post by Create »

rorylawless wrote: post #209
drewda wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty straightforward compared to the giant universe of companies that resell Microsoft services. The number of intermediaries that some customers, especially governmental agencies, go through to get just an Azure bill can be wild...

I’ve recently been unwillingly exposed to this side of things. It’s truly an insane, there must be a better way?

It's BASIC. LET them GOTO jail (BSD also comes to mind)

(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_licensing_corruption... ) The upside: the EU finally got a prosecutor. And last but not least everybody forgot why the Baby Bells were born.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#212

Post by taormina »

rdiddly wrote: post #94
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.

I would also add that the models they supply through Azure Foundry are covered under my employer's existing customer agreement, by which MS is not allowed to train models on our data (which might include IP of the company or its clients). For organizations worried about that, it's nice & cozy.

They just altered this deal for everyone else. Wonder how long they will wait before default opting you all into training too?

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#213

Post by szszrk »

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.

> I don't understand why anyone would want to deal with Microsoft as a vendor if they don't have to.

This is about personal plans. Github Copilot is half the price of any competition I found.

It's just a decent deal for light users.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#214

Post by miki123211 »

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.

The value-add that Microsoft brings is checking the boxes that you want checked.

If you need some random Egyptian government compliance certification for your vendors or whatever, Microsoft probably has that, Anthropic probably doesn't. Microsoft's (as well as Oracle's) entire deal these days is figuring out what customers care about compliance-wise, and structuring their offerings to deliver exactly that. Whether they're selling their own products, or re-selling somebody else who doesn't have that kind of global footprint and clout, is secondary at best.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#215

Post by internetguy »

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.

I'm fine with it seeing as I can use my student email and get free usage

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#216

Post by sumtechguy »

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…

Think someone got the bill and worked out their burn rate and pushed the big stop button.

Remember when you are renting other peoples computers they can and will change the terms for their benefit. They own it. You dont. You rent it.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#217

Post by 0xDEFACED »

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.

access to all of the latest and greatest models for half the price of a single company's basic plan is (or rather, was) a very compelling option

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#218

Post by shmolyneaux »

Opus was the reason I paid for GitHub copilot, but they had the pricing model completely wrong. I could assign copilot to a substantial issue using Opus and have it handle 30 minutes of work with many subagents with iterative testing. With 300 "premium requests" a month I could have copilot do substantial work for 3 premium requests per issue. It was very clear that this was unsustainable for Microsoft to pay for, so I expected change to come.

However, I never expected Opus 4.6 to be removed for the cheaper plans. I expected the pricing model to change, but not to lose access to the model. Moving to being token-based makes sense. It makes the cost more closely aligned with user pricing.

It was nice while it lasted. I got Opus 4.5 to do a lot of work from the beach by assigning it to detailed issues. With this news I've cancelled my Pro subscription. That will help a bit with their capacity issues.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#219

Post by drumttocs8 »

plasma_beam wrote: post #60
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.

Because if you’re a vscode user up until a couple days ago you could hammer Opus 4.6 all day every day and pay nowhere close to the Claude Max plan. Many people exploited this and the subsidy is closing.

Exactly, it was just simply much cheaper and perfect for my usecase.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#220

Post by batch12 »

shmolyneaux wrote: post #218

Opus was the reason I paid for GitHub copilot, but they had the pricing model completely wrong. I could assign copilot to a substantial issue using Opus and have it handle 30 minutes of work with many subagents with iterative testing. With 300 "premium requests" a month I could have copilot do substantial work for 3 premium requests per issue. It was very clear that this was unsustainable for Microsoft to pay for, so…

I have been needing to cut back on my subscription services, too. I also canceled.
Post reply on HN