[Alupis]

Is 47 users really a "startup"? If you have anywhere near 47 actual users, affording $1k a month is going to be trivial.

Would be nice if you could have, say, 5 users and extend the 2 years by not using all $1k monthly credits, adding users as you grow.

[TAForObvReasons]

It's targeted towards funded startups that are just picking up:

> Designed for: "Funded: Product Market Fit"

> The qualified offer is designed to help companies that are focused on growth, so it’s less applicable for consultancies and small businesses.

It's not designed for smaller bootstrapped businesses and other scenarios that would involve 5 users for extended periods of time

https://startups.microsoft.com/en-us/benefits/

[aroch]

You might also pay for stuff like LFS and packages.

But if I had to guess, $1000 is probably in the 95th+ percentile of spending for teams <20 (or any sufficiently small group) -> thus this is letting startups spend on Github resources without worrying about running out of credits for two years

[cortesoft]

If you are that size, why not just use regular github?

[toomuchtodo]

If you can't afford to start paying after 2 years, it's time to give up or pivot. This is very generous of MS/GH to offer until you've got traction.

[Alupis]

> If you can't afford to start paying after 2 years, it's time to give up or pivot

That's kind of extremist, isn't it?

Plenty of startups are bootstrapped, one or two people, and can survive just fine using basic tooling. The free offerings from Gitlab and Bitbucket (which include private repos) are just fine for a lot of startups.

Not all startups are your VC backed unicorns.

> This is very generous of MS/GH to offer

Is it? It's really just an attempt to lock you into a proprietary system that you cannot export your data out of nor easily move off of down the road.

[toomuchtodo]

No, I don’t believe it’s extremist to start paying for a commercial offering after a 2 year trial period. If you can make due with a free competing product, go for it.

If you’re not making enough in 2 years to pay for basic biz expenses, you’re a hobby and you shouldn’t expect enterprise features (SSO for example) for free in perpetuity.

[BeeOnRope]

You are misrepresenting their argument. He didn't say paying for a commercial offering after two years is extremist. Rather, they said your position that "if you can't pay for a commerical offering in two years, it's time to give up or pivot".

I also find that second position extremist.

[toomuchtodo]

Time is valuable, but I suppose we all value it differently. I concede being an extremist in this regard. Time is the ultimate non renewable resource.

[cortesoft]

If you are two people, regular github will serve you fine.

[eyelidlessness]

> It's really just an attempt to lock you into a proprietary system that you cannot export your data out of nor easily move off of down the road.

The GH API covers a lot of what `git` doesn't. GH's strategy has never been lock-in. They provide a good service that's constantly improving. (I'm sure other services have advantages and I'm in no way going to claim that GH is the best in class, but I am continually happy with GH and with its continued improvement.)

[kelnos]

Liking GH and not (currently) wanting to move doesn't mean you're not locked in. Sure, it's possible to export your GH data and import it into something like GitLab or Bitbucket, but it's not exactly an easy process, and most orgs would think really hard before moving. It's definitely lock-in, regardless of whether or not it's a part of their strategy.

From MS's side, of course it's a lock-in strategy. The whole "MS for Startups" thing is a way to attract small companies to their platform and keep them there until they've grown to a point that switching away is more work than it's worth. Adding GH Enterprise to the offering just makes it more attractive.

[kdazzle]

(Hint: the lock-in is AZURE)