[alchemical]

Honestly when I read the title I thought GH switched their business model and offered free users the ability to start a private repo, but this is not the case.

If it is the case that I have to pay to have privacy on Github, then it imposes a privacy-rich versus privacy-poor dichotomy which I am uncomfortable with. Now I know as far as these things go (GH can be subject to National Security Letters), that GH is not really absolutely private. (Backdoors into people's 'secret' GISTS anyone?).

GH had an opportunity here to change their business model so that free users can avail of private repos, and GH could still manage to bring in revenue. GH primarily makes the bulk of their income from what I call 'stakeholder accounts'. That is; those companies who simply couldn't function correctly if GH didn't exist. It is in these stakeholders that there is a symbiotic relationship of revenue for GH, and value for the stakeholder(s).

There are very little lone private individuals who have that kind of symbiotic relationship, and so at least give these low income users the same equal rights of privacy as behemoth tech organizations. It makes sense.

In terms of how GH gets revenue from these users, there are countless other ways to do this instead of relying on the monolithic device of a premium subscription model. Offer paid licenses for their proprietary GH clients. (A one off payment of $20.00 for the GH Windows client is something I would actually pay money for)...

[pothibo]

It's 7$/month. You sure can be made uncomfortable easily.

If someone wants a private repo but doesn't value his/her private code to the amount of 7$/month for ALL their private repos, then I guess it shouldn't have been made private in the first place.

FWIW, a Big Mac combo is around the same price. One is junk, the other is where you showcase/store all your professionnal knowledge and experience.

[unethical_ban]

What are you going on about? You're bringing in National Security Letters into a discussion about public vs. private repos on Github? Do you know what a threat model is?

I wager they've kept people using public by default for several reasons, among them these:

* It gives them something to upsell on. If you're not completely poor, giving $7/mo for a code repo is not unreasonable. Or, to price it in a more relatable manner, 1.5 mochas.

* It encourages the "social coding" ecosystem. I believe the network effect of Github is the strongest thing keeping people using it instead of dispersing across Bitbucket/Gitlab/etc. a lot more.

And as a simple point of disagreement, I think fewer people would pay for a Github client than a private Github repo. And why is charging for a client so much more ethical to you than charging for a service, with ongoing maintenance costs?