Live data from Hacker News

Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

github.blog

221–230 of 241 posts

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#221
context: using student pack's "pro" plan for a long time, with exposure to enterprise "pro" plan also.

given the recent changes that kneecapped the plan for students [1], i feel less bad after seeing this. always had monthly limit on premium requests shown in the extension (which i would watch in dread creep up), the daily/weekly "usage limits" part seem ambiguous at best.

using agentic workloads as the basis for this change does not sit quite right with me. if you look at the newly added debug mode, you may notice the token consumption as well as the subagent/tool calls made behind the scenes. my takeaways:

- it consumes way too much tokens for simple tasks (had one use case where the agent burnt 16+ million tokens just to make 50 line change in a monorepo using plan -> agent approach)

- even when you select a model in the dropdown, the subagents/tools can be called with an entirely different model, often the haiku-4.5. gpt-4o is widely used for creating summaries or titles to display for the plan.

- the new reasoning modes have exacerbated the token burning as the agent tends to loop a whole lot. the prompt vs plan token ratio is quite minuscule, and when combined with your own instruction files and skills, it just goes out of the window.

i think they have given a generous model in the past, but by kneecapping the lower tier, it no longer justifies existence. if they want to raise prices, they can raise the floor. or rather put some work in improving their own orchestration system before putting the blame on the users vibing it out.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47500445

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not surprised to see this is common. At my company basically everyone and their mother are using Claude Code via Bedrock, despite us having company-wide Windsurf, Copilot and ChatGPT Enterprise accounts

That sounds different, the parent is saying they're using that because then no new billing and stuff has to be negotiated/setup, but in your case everything is already setup and people have access, they just chose to use something else?

Indeed. The use case is like this: I'm a Devops/Platform/SRE/Infra/WhateverYouCallAWSAdminInYourOrg at BigCorp and end users are asking me to use software XYZ. It's on the AWS Marketplace. I have two choices. I could either

1. Go through a 1-2 month procurement process where I have to deal with not only the vendor's sales team on who I'm buying from but also probably multiple teams in my BigCorp. Vendor sales team wants to feel relevant and so I'm sitting in at least one meeting where I'm telling them I just want to buy your shit make it as fast as possible. But then the people in my BigCorp likely not only don't understand why the software is necessary, but need to feel relevant and as such will make me fight through bureaucratic hurdles. I have to get compliance involved. Finance involved. If there's a procurement team I have to get them involved. Probably there's a security questionnaire that my bigcorp's security team uses. I have to send that to the vendor's sales people. They have to send it to their security folks. Security folks on their end have to complete it and send it back. I have to send approvals up the chain on my end, after I've successfully convinced some clueless nontechnical user why software XYZ is important and no, the shit half baked thing we already have doesn't work.

OR alternatively:

2. I can go to the AWS marketplace, click a button, and now my AWS bill goes up X thousands of dollars per month and none of the bullshit from 1 is required. Because AWS is already an approved vendor. Everyone except perhaps someone monitoring the AWS bill for large increases is happy and doesn't care (well, maybe the security team does, but hopefully they aren't tattling on you to the procurement people who have nothing to do and want to stick their fingers in the process and we can make that process go quick), and I just need to tell that person that we are doing it.

It's not always the exact narrative I just laid out, but the gist of it is pretty much procurement at every bigcorp.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#226
post #213
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.

Over the past month, I started a GHCP ~$12 Pro sub, and found I hit my quota about half way through March or so (but I also wasn't being very...frugal). So I signed up for Claude (~$20 Pro) for a month, and I liked it at first, but the 5 hour window was very annoying, and I hit it quite a bit. The first ~week of April was nice though, and I could use Claude to the limit, and then switch to GHCP. I've sym-linked my instructions so it was more or less easy switching back and forth when I hit a limit.

However, Claude changed their limits so I got to 100% very easily, and when I did hit 100%, I couldn't be given a "window" of snapshoting my work into something for another agent (either future claude window or GHCP agent) to easily pick up mid-work.

I found the lack of visibility into what costs what was very annoying. For $20/month, you get an arbitrary amount of usage that they were changing without notice or alerts or visuals. I didn't renew CC after it expired and just kept with GHCP.

Even with this announcement from GHCP, I haven't run into a limit. I'm considering upgrading to Pro+ if I don't see a limit.

But I stick with Sonnet more or less in both environments. I only used Opus for a couple of planning sessions at the very beginning, but JIT planning is done good enough by the more mid-tier models.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#229
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

PSA: You only have about 36 hours left to opt-out!
Post reply on HN