Finally! While as others point out this can work out more expensive the improvement is is that it scales as my company scales and doesn't act as a disincentive to developers spinning up new repos.
Introducing unlimited private repositories
81–90 of 662 posts
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#82What about companies like Epic Games that have few repos but many users? With their 2 private UnrealEngine and UnrealTournament repos they would have been paying $25 a month and under the new pricing structure will have to pay $815,913 per month... edit: That's based on what I can see as a UE4 subscriber, 2 private repos and 90657 users.
We are reaching out to customers that are in unique situations such as the one you're mentioning here. If you have questions about how the pricing changes affect you, please don’t hesitate to contact support@github.com.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#83I see absolutely no reason why one would pay GitHub for private repositories when there is Bitbucket, or much better alternative to GitHub altogether - GitLab.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#84All those private repos and no way to organize them :( Where are the namespaces/projects github?
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#85I'm sure a lot of people will be moving from Bitbucket to this, Bitbucket's plans were great for hundreds of repos, but Github's ecosystem is definitely preferable.
I'm not sure, Bitbucket's price effectively is $1/user and Github's $9/user. I wouldn't expect organisations to move to Bitbucket either, as change is generally costly in terms of man-hour, but current price structure makes Bitbucket eight-fold cheaper.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#86A 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…
Even for software houses, it's VERY problematic as we add customers to projects as external collaborators and we're going to get billed for that forever, even if most customers have very light usage, and even for non active projects. I was thrilled by this news but it's going to be completely unaffordable for us. We have 29 users and 51 external collaborators. We have recently upgraded to the Platinum plan ($2460/yr)…
I keep my eye on Microsoft's Visual Studio Team Services. It has a bit of a clunky name and aimed more at enterprises but I think at some point they will position it as a competitor to GitHub. It's free for the first five developers, and no charge for "stakeholder" user accounts.
https://www.visualstudio.com/pricing/visual-studio-team-serv...
So 29 users would be $182/m (check my maths) and you'd pay nothing for the external collaborators (assuming they fit the "stakeholder" role ... no need access to the code).
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi alanfranzoni, Outside collaborators on public repositories of an organization are free. Only the ones invited to collaborate on private repositories are counted as paid users. Hope this helps!
So to clarify: if I'm an organisation with 100 private repositories, and I add an outside collaborator with access to just one of them, I have to pay $9 a month for them? I was quite excited about this change (we're an agency with a large number of repos and a relatively small number of users) until I read your comment.
Yes, they're actively screwing agencies and software houses.
When they introduced the new organization features, I smelled they were heading here, but I honestly thought that the "outside collaborator" concept was meant exactly for not billing this kind of rare users. Guess what, greediness has no limit.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#88I know a lot of companies that are too cheap to pay for hosting (or even host in-house), and therefore use bitbucket with its unlimited private repos. It's their gateway drug, and once they get used to that, good luck having them move over to github.
> too cheap to pay for hosting
That's your view of companies that don't throw money at an over priced service with a history of ignoring customer requests? "too cheap".
I hear that's why Linus first wrote the Linux kernel back in the day - he was too cheap to buy a license for a commercial unix. /s
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#89What about companies like Epic Games that have few repos but many users? With their 2 private UnrealEngine and UnrealTournament repos they would have been paying $25 a month and under the new pricing structure will have to pay $815,913 per month... edit: That's based on what I can see as a UE4 subscriber, 2 private repos and 90657 users.
We are reaching out to customers that are in unique situations such as the one you're mentioning here. If you have questions about how the pricing changes affect you, please don’t hesitate to contact support@github.com.
If you need to give Epic Games special treatment just because they have a huge amount of outside collaborators, then your pricing model is broken.
It would be more fair to charge $9/mo per organization member + $1/mo per active outside collaborator (somewhat similar to AWS CodeCommit) than to charge for every single active and inactive member and collaborator equally. Maybe throw in a 50% bulk discount for active outside collaborators over 1000.
This is not a "unique situation", it's how many organizations use GitHub (just on a smaller scale than Epic Games). As giovannibajo1 puts it[1], this change is very unfair to software houses. Giving Epic Games special treatment is only avoiding the issue.
If 5% of Epic Game's 90664 collaborators are active for a given month, then with my proposed pricing model it would now cost them ($9/organization member + ~$2766)/mo, instead of >$800k/mo. No special deals needed, and everyone (presumably) is happy.
This proposed pricing model also scales well for software houses that have have many active outside collaborators. For example, a company with 20 employees and 50% of 100 outside collaborators active in any given month would be charged $230/mo. With 50 employees and 50% of 500 outside collaborators active, it would be $700/mo.
This should also work well for large companies. 200 employees + 30% of 4000 outside contributors active = $2900/mo.
Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories
#90A 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…
>I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and future requests from clients) fall into this category, but who else? Companies using micro services? Companies that don't want to have one big repository for their software?
What made our small team choose BitBucket over GitHub was the consideration that having to pay for # repositories would force us (and about everyone) to organise code not based on development convenience, but on $ convenience, which means put everything in a few very big and messy repositories.