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

231–240 of 241 posts

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#231

Post by WorldMaker »

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.

Even in solo development, the value add of developer experience benefits of Github Copilot's integration into Github itself (kick off agent work from your phone on the GitHub site), VS Code, and other tools is quite high.

For direct instance: Anthropic's Claude Code, despite being primarily written in Python, didn't even properly support Windows until far too recently (suggesting people use WSL instead) and even now is not a great Windows experience (requiring git bash, illuminating that among other things Claude's models themselves haven't trained enough on PowerShell, and I try to avoid Claude's models when working on PowerShell scripts still, personally).

Meanwhile VS Code works everywhere I want it to, out of the box, and VS Code's GitHub Copilot integration does the same.

Also, your "near zero" value add includes engineers at Microsoft/Github following the "which is the smartest/most practical model" meta-game for you and just silently updating defaults in Copilot for you without needing to make conscious choices. Sure, you can follow that meta yourself by watching HN every day and sampling hundreds or thousands of opinions across dozens to hundreds of stories each day, then play a "Netflix subscription game" of switching subscriptions every X months when the meta-game shifts or you can pay Microsoft to do all that research for you (which true also includes their professional business relationships/contracts with OpenAI and Anthropic, which is as much of a feature as a bug in my opinion because it's also a signal in the opinion war noise of choosing the "smartest model [for you, right now]" and does show up as its own HN stories for meta-debate). At least to me that's much more than a 0% or 1% value add, but maybe that's also because I don't trust either Anthropic or OpenAI directly, I sort of don't trust HN's comments as a strong guide to playing the meta-game, it's not a meta-game I want to play, and I'm happy to pay someone else to play it for me.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#232

Post by jdthedisciple »

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…

It's even worse:

The multiplier got 2.5x-ed (from 3 to 7.5)

The minimum plan with Opus access is 4x costlier.

That's a 10x total price increase for having access to Opus at all.

But yes, if you account for the 5x more requests, then it's 2x – not relevant though if you're like me and wouldn't usually max out the quota.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#234

Post by sornaensis »

TheRoque wrote: post #51
sornaensis wrote: post #43

Good thing I had just finished migrating all of my workflows to OpenCode for the time being! It's a shame because the VsCode copilot experience is quite good out of the box compared to all of the other harnesses I've used. But with typical lack of transparency, and sudden, harsh changes... What are they thinking? After the restrictive rate limiting they've already instituted, I'm simply cancelling and continuing by u…

Which providers do you use ? I find copilot's prices pretty hard to beat, but if there's something better I'll cancel too.

Without access to Opus, it seems to me that the limited context size you get isn't worth the subsidy, especially once you blow through the included requests, the cost seems kind of hard to predict because it's 'request' based not token based.

I just opted for ChatGPT Pro; I'm trying to take advantage of the increased usage limits they are offering, and from what I heard, Claude Pro was also having bad rate limiting for many people.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#235

Post by ThunderSizzle »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #226
szszrk wrote: post #213

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. 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 in…

I spoke too soon. I just got told I need to wait 100 hours without warning. Crazy. Same problem I had with claude code.

Time to consider buying hardware, I guess

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#236

Post by jeremyjh »

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…

> 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.

Yes I was hearing that a lot the past few weeks. Its pretty clear what happened:

Anthropic demand soared from OpenClaw, but they were already over-sold. Cowork shipped, Hegseth flexed and a lot of people and entire orgs moved from ChatGPT to Claude in the space of a month. They couldn't handle the demand - they quantized their models, dropped effective usage limits and made all kinds of tweaks in Claude Code to reduce token burn.

Lots of customers fled to Codex and they got crunched as well. Some people noticed Copilot was still selling dollars for nickles and mentioned it to other people.

The only question I care about: Is z.ai next? GLM 5.1 is simply where its at right now. It is not the best model, but it is much better than Sonnet at 1/5 the cost.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#237

Post by qingcharles »

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's the only one with really tight integration with Visual Studio. I'm stuck using Visual Studio for most of WinForms development. You can do it with VSCode, or Codex, or Claude Code, but you just lose the GUI which is sometimes helpful.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#238

Post by qingcharles »

timr wrote: post #79
selcuka wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the time, Haiku is fine. Haiku is most definitely not fine for the code bases that I work on. Sonnet is probably fine for most daily tasks, but Opus is still needed to find that pesky bug you've been chasing, or to thoroughly review your PR.

> Haiku is most definitely not fine for the code bases that I work on. Sonnet is probably fine for most daily tasks, but Opus is still needed to find that pesky bug you've been chasing, or to thoroughly review your PR. Yeah, I hear that a lot, but it never comes with proof. Everyone is special. I’m sure you’d find that Haiku is pretty functional if there were a constraint on your use.

Also, GitHub Copilot dropped down to defaulting to GPT5.3 for most requests after culling Opus, and honestly, that was a SOTA model only weeks ago. It blew people's minds about how good it was. And now we're all here moaning. It's even worse than your Ferrari->Bicycle example. It's like they took away your 2026 Ferrari and gave "just" a 2025 Ferrari.

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#239

Post by novia »

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…

today was my first time using copilot since the change. i never told it to always use opus or the latest codex model. i always relied on the auto-router to choose which model to use. It always worked well. Today it sucks, because they took away the option for the autorouter to use the best models. The thing that is failing is something extremely simple. Maybe the routing component got broken with this new change

Re: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans

#240

Post by alienbaby »

xienze wrote: post #84
sovietmudkipz wrote: post #22

I cannot describe how disappointing it is to be switching to this insane time limit window based pricing. I absolutely abhor that I'll be subjected to 5 hour chunks of time where I'll be limited at some point in that window of time, and be told I'll have to wait. And then there is a weekly limit. That's not how my creative energy works. I have time that I want to solve problems, and I want to solve them. I don't want…

> I'm incredibly disappointed when I sat down to my hobbyist programming time and realized copilot was suddenly and dramatically changed in a way that is incredibly disheartening. Guess it’s time to rediscover the lost art of programming without an LLM.

it's not being able to code thats the problem. It's a multiplier on how much you can complete in a given timeframe.
Post reply on HN