[unfunco]

And for us it's negative, our monthly bill has just increased by hundreds of dollars. In theory, our respective organisations could be in competition, and GitHub has just increased our monthly bill to subsidise your organisation, instead of shouldering the financial burden themselves.

[odonnellryan]

> GitHub has just increased our monthly bill to subsidise your organisation, instead of shouldering the financial burden themselves.

This is a really weird argument. They are a company supplying a service, why should they ever have to shoulder the bill?

I'd argue that if things stayed the same, this small company would subsidize you: if you have 100 accounts using 1 repo it's more likely you're using more resources than 1 account with even 1000 repos :)

[unfunco]

My point is that larger companies are now be punished for a failed initial pricing model by GitHub. I prefer the new pricing model from a personal point of view, but for larger organisations it's now too expensive and I think many will relocate their repositories to BitBucket, or GitLab, or Gogs, or etcetera.

Edit: My parent post is being down voted and that's fine, my point was not made in anger, it was an observation that smaller companies are having their monthly costs decreased, and the larger companies are seeing an increase, for organisations created after today that's a fair premise, but for those organisations that have been using GitHub for years and have now seen their monthly costs increase, it's a slap in the face.

[uxp]

> a failed initial pricing model by GitHub

It's been 8 years since they revealed their pricing model, which has remained mostly unchanged on the lower end and only adjusted on the high end to account for GitHub Enterprise and suggest people move to that instead of the gargantuan $3k/mo plans. I don't know many SaaS companies that don't tweak their pricing much more infrequently than that. Thoughtbot's Giant Robots Smashing into Other Giant Robots podcast for the past few episodes has been consistently talking about A/B testing pricing models, prices changes and signup, conversion and churn, as a weekly adjustment on some of their services (FormKeep, Upcase, etc)

https://github.com/blog/22-the-pricing-plans

[unfunco]

Failed might have been a strong and stupid word, it's worked for GitHub. The new model just doesn't work for our organisation, and that's not the fault of GitHub but it does cause us some headaches.

[jglovier]

Sorry to hear this change is frustrating for your team. If the new model doesn't work for you, can stay on the old structure. We're not automatically migrating anyone, so you can stay on the old plan. If we ever do decide to phase out the legacy structure completely, you'll still have 12 months from that point before you have to move over. (We've updated the blog post to reflect that clarification, too)

[unfunco]

Thank you!

[vehementi]

> punished

> subsidized

Come on. Those things are not happening.

[ascendantlogic]

The sheer irony of this statement is staggering. Github is a business and their goal is to make money. If you have 5x the number of people doing dev work on your code, then by definition you are a "larger" organization from their vantage point. Why wouldn't you pay more?

[hrez]

"Why wouldn't you pay more?" comments are rather annoying. Why would you pay more if you don't have to? Bitbucket caps their price at $200/month for unlimited users. That would pay for only ~25 users on github. Basically they are 9 times as expensive per user as bitbucket.

[rdancer]

Have you considered that if you self-hosted on a repurposed desktop machine running off solar panels, with unpaid interns doing maintenance, you could cap it at $0, and save on the heating bill during winter?

[ascendantlogic]

So then what is your solution? Per-repo pricing still?

[krschultz]

If your bill increased by hundreds of dollars then you have many employees. You really can't afford $9 per user a month? This came up in the Jetbrains pricing arguments. What the hell are you paying software engineers if $9 or $20 a month matters. My employer has paid me more than $9 in the time I've been trolling this thread to respond to people.

[giovannibajo1]

This argument doesn't make sense. What matters is how much the total Github cost (or cost increase, if we're evaluating the impact of this change) affects your bottom line, or the costs of your department, or even your company profit. For instance, my company would get a $6k hit from this price change, and we spend ~30k on SaaS software in total or ~60k in IT costs (including wages). It's a very significant change, that will absolutely trigger a strong evaluation of alternatives.

[krschultz]

Assuming you are using annual numbers there, you are saying you have 55 users on Github. The relevant number isn't your IT budget, it's the salaries of the people using GitHub. If it's $75k per person thats over $4.125 million a year.

Does 0.15% of your budget matter? Does GitHub not make your team 0.15% more productive? Would the switching cost to a new tool be less than 0.15% of your total cost?

If you are doing that math and coming up with the answer that switching makes sense, by all means do it, but I would argue that your problems are bigger than your GitHub bill. I personally can't fathom working for a company that strapped for cash, I'd be looking for a new job myself.

[inyourtenement]

They've not announced a timeline for forcing you to move plans. Maybe they never will.

[whatnotests]

You could move to bit bucket.