1. 44
    GitHub is now free for teams release vcs github.blog
  1.  

  2. 14

    So looking at their pricing page, it looks like a number of features will only be available on public repos, and you still need to get a plan to get those features on your private repos (draft PRs, code owners, protected branches; scroll down a bit on that page for a table).

    Also looks like GitHub actions and the package storage is a big part of their pricing strategy now, whereas before (up to a year ago or so) it was mostly about charging for private repos.

    1. 2

      It’s interesting to me that GitHub seems to be aligning with Bitbucket on this one (https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing) rather than Bitbucket playing catch up.

      I have to admit this makes me less likely to want to work on my personal open source git hosting project because moves like this make users less likely to move over… because a small open source solution will never have the same feature set something like GitHub does.

      1. 20

        I have to admit this makes me less likely to want to work on my personal open source git hosting project

        So I started working on my own analytics project last year, with the plan to make this a sustainable source of income, and every time someone announces a “we’ve built a new analytics product” here or on HN I’m a little bit discouraged. When I started last year, there were very few alternatives; now: many more.

        Then I look at the new products, and many are neat and seem well-built but … they’re also different than what I’m building in various ways (technical, UI, business), so then I’m like “this is okay, no problem!”

        This is also the value stuff like Sourcehut gives us. For me, personally, I think sourcehut is a terrible product, I would not enjoy using it at all because the workflow just doesn’t jibe with me. But clearly it is useful for many people, and it’s certainly offering something different than the GitHub and clones of the world, so I think it’s a cool project just for that, regardless of my personal opinion of it.

        If you’re working on a “GitHub clone”, then yeah, it may not be worth it to continue (which was already the case before, since there are a whole bunch of them already). But if you’re working on something that solves the same problem in a different way: then there’s certainly value in that, and if you do it well enough you should get users/customers regardless of what GitHub is doing.

        That’s just my 2c on that anyway; focus on your own story and don’t be too distracted on other people’s stories.

        1. 5

          So I started working on my own analytics project last year, with the plan to make this a sustainable source of income, and every time someone announces a “we’ve built a new analytics product” here or on HN I’m a little bit discouraged. When I started last year, there were very few alternatives; now: many more.

          Usually you should be happy when this happens. Competition showing up is validation that the area you are investing in or the project you are building actually has a market. Don’t get discouraged, the pie is often big enough to feed everyone at the table and it’s better to eat a pie in company than stare at an empty plate alone.

          1. 2

            Yeah, agreed, and I’m happy there are alternatives people can choose from. Also helps keep me sharp.

          2. 3

            Wow, thanks for the quality response. I’ve been feeling a bit down lately and I think a bit of it just came out in my original post… I wasn’t expecting such a well thought out response.

            At least as far as I can tell, there seems to be a bunch of missing tools that stick to simplicity. Goatcounter does a fantastic job of this in the analytics space. That was one of the original goals of my project as well - a simple way to securely deploy git repos, definitely not a GitHub clone, The original plan was mostly for personal use but after taking a closer look at Goatcounter, maybe I’ll have to see if I can come up with some small enterprise focused features as well.

            In any sense, thanks for the encouragement, I really do appreciate it.

          3. 2

            this makes me less likely to want to work on my personal open source git hosting project

            I get what you are saying, but on the other hand this is the best time to push for such solutions. I think there is room for more of these types of projects.

            1. 1

              I don’t know, Github should catch up to others at this point, imo. Paid private repos was always a negative thing to me and when they sold to Microsoft, a lot of peoples trust in Github was betrayed. Its a good move for them right now and should have been done sooner in my opinion. I do find myself using alternatives for private projects and Github is sort of a portfolio for me. I don’t really see myself migrating all my private repos to GH in the future though.

          4. 23

            Press release, at least needs the release tag. :(

            Part of being able to afford this is by having free advertising done by people sharing these announcements in communities like ours. I’ve complained about sourcehut for doing this, I can’t really give Microsoft a pass for the same thing.

            1. 11

              Isn’t this just advertisement? I at least flagged it as spam.

              Edit: Especially because all GitHub users already got and email with the same announcement.

              1. 2

                Yep.

            2. 16

              So Microsoft GitHub is doing the “lower the price, so the competition dies”-trick in this market as well, now. Interesting.

              1. 26

                A company responding to market pressures and pricing their products more competitively. Truly an evil ploy 😒🙄

                1. 8

                  Wouldn’t you say it’s unfair competition to be able to dump infinite money into a business area in order to drive out competitors? That’s way past aggressive pricing.

                  1. 4

                    Wouldn’t you say it’s unfair competition to be able to dump infinite money into a business area in order to drive out competitors? That’s way past aggressive pricing.

                    It depends on how much you do it and for how long. Most startups start by selling below cost. The joke about Amazon in the ‘90s was that they make a loss on each sale, but make it up in volume. The typical marker for anticompetitive behaviour is whether the low price is long-term sustainable. If you are selling below cost because you expect to be able to lower your costs via economies of scale, that’s fine. If you’re cross-subsidising from another revenue stream and just trying to push your competitors out of business, that typically isn’t.

                    As I understand it [1], GitHub is independently profitable, primarily from the enterprise offerings. The free offering is one of the highest return-on-investment advertising campaigns that any company has ever offered (Gillette sending free razors to everyone in the UK who appeared as male on the electoral roll one year is close). Pretty much everyone coming out of university with a vague interest in programming has GitHub experience and I would be shocked if that didn’t translate into a load of companies buying the enterprise offerings. Even the $21/month/dev offering is a lot cheaper for most companies than doing the same thing in-house (compare that to even the salary of one person full time maintaining the infrastructure and you need quite a lot of devs for that to reach the break-even point).

                    [1] Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft Research, so may be considered biased, but I have no visibility into GitHub.

                    1. 2

                      Bitbucket’s been like this forever right?

                      “Offer basic service for free, advanced features behind paywall” is not really an odd concept, and it doesn’t require infinite money pits. As a (relatively small, granted) team we evaluated this change and decided to keep on paying for the paid service because we wanted the feaetures it was providing.

                      I also remember a thing about how GH makes a bunch of money on its on-premise thing, and I imagine that pricing is not changing at all

                    2. 9

                      A company responding to market pressures with no regard for profit against competitors that don’t have vast resources backing them is a net detriment to the market. Similarly large companies (Google, Facebook) have no reason to get into the market and smaller companies (GitLab, sourcehut) can’t easily compete with Microsoft operating at a loss. This a classic monopoly tactic.

                      1. 5

                        I’m not so sure if it’s the case that GitHub “has no regard to profit”; in the HN thread Nat said they’ve been wanting to do this for a while, but had to wait for revenue in the enterprise to be high enough. The existing pricing for BitBucket and GitLab are similar to the new GitHub pricing; GitHub was actually quite expensive before. The new pricing seems reasonable and fair to me, and is competitive. I see no evidence of it being sponsored by Windows sales, for example.

                        GitLab seems to be doing quite well with $100M revenue, Atlassian has $1.2 billion revenue (can’t find numbers for BitBucket specifically), sourcehut will always remain a niche product due to its idiosyncrasies (which is not just fine, but great; niche markets deserve good products too). So I’m not especially worried about any of those.

                        I’m also not hugely enthusiastic by large companies becoming ever larger, and would have preferred if GitHub had remained independent. I think we probably have some common ground here. But what I’m a little bit tired of is that everything GitHub does these days is seen as part of some sort of malicious plan, and the assumption that everything they do is done in bad faith. Certainly in this case, it seems like a normal common-sense business decision to me.

                        Is there a potential for Microsoft to abuse their power with GitHub? Sure! But thus far I’ve seen no indications of this. I agree we should be watchful for this (and ideally we should have better anti-trust laws), but I think we must also keep a level head and not jump to conclusions over every small thing. As someone who started using Linux/BSD systems in the early 2000s I have plenty of gripes with Microsoft (being sent a .doc file was a proper hassle back then), but pretty much all of the leadership has changed and Microsoft is not the same company. Referring to long-since abandoned strategies like EEE is, quite frankly, just inappropriate. I have actually flagged that comment as “unkind”, because random accusations without evidence are not appropriate IMO, even when directed at companies.

                        CC this this also replies to your comments: @nomto @caleb @azdle

                        1. 2

                          I wrote a whole in-depth response but then, upon re-reading, I realized that we pretty much have no common ground on which to discuss this.

                          I have actually flagged that comment as “unkind”, because random accusations without evidence are not appropriate IMO, even when directed at companies.

                          Y’all are on some real bootlicker shit over here.

                          1. 1

                            I can see you’re committed to constructive discourse where everyone is free to voice their opinions without fear of being insulted; not so much to convince each other, but to at least understand each other’s positions better. Thank you!

                          2. 1

                            But what I’m a little bit tired of is that everything GitHub does these days is seen as part of some sort of malicious plan, and the assumption that everything they do is done in bad faith.

                            Everything that GitHub does these days is part of some sort of malicious plan. That’s how business works (at this scale and in this part of the economy, at any rate).

                        2. 4

                          It’s a ploy to eliminate competition and expand private control over the infrastructure used by developers. Whether you think it’s evil depends on your values.

                        3. 5

                          The interesting part is that they chose to do it after their Enterprise business got big enough to subsidize it, not as a loss-leader using Microsoft money. It seems like the strategy to keep GitHub and Microsoft relatively separated has allowed GitHub to continue to connect very well with their target audience. Someone on HN mentioned Cloudflare as another company that has done a similarly good job of understanding who they’re marketing to and making changes that makes their target market happy.

                          1. 3
                            1. 12

                              Do you have any examples of GitHub or Microsoft extending git so that it’s incompatible with non-GitHub/Microsoft clients?

                              1. 11

                                I don’t know if/don’t think that this is a case of EEE, but FWIW, I’ve had a lot of trouble explaining people past a certain level of management (read: who have not programmed for more than some amount of time) that git and Github are different things. I’ve worked in a place where virtually everyone with a word to say in terms of budget, tooling and whatnot hadn’t used a version control system since back when SVN was pretty fresh, and some of the things that I had lots of trouble (read: needed countless hours and countless meetings) were:

                                • Git is a VCS, Github is a tool that uses git. (This was all happening while I was lending a hand with a very tortuous transition to git and virtually everyone referred to it as “the transition to github”, even though we were actually using Gitlab!)
                                • git is not developed by Microsoft.
                                • Github is not the enterprise/SaaS version of git, git is not the free/community version of Github.
                                • Gitlab is not a free/self-hosted/community edition of Github.
                                • You don’t need something like Github or Gitlab to use git.
                                • The pull request-oriented workflow of Github is just one of the possible workflows, and you can do it without Github or Gitlab.

                                Some of these I’m pretty sure I never managed to really get across. The last meeting I attended before leaving that place saw a bunch of questions like “can we upgrade from Gitlab to Github” and “Can the CLI version of Github (NB: git. That guy meant git.) create pull requests?”

                                I don’t really follow the politics of these things because I can’t really say I care – VCSs come and go, I self-host git for myself but otherwise I use whatever my customers want to use and I’m happy with it. But if Microsoft wanted to do the EEE thing, the fruit is definitely ripe.

                                1. 3

                                  The fact that github run the git.io URL shortener is pretty darn deceptive, IMHO.

                                  1. 2

                                    I’m not so worried about that in the case of git/GitHub to be honest, since it’s primarily a development tool. If devs decide they want a different tool en-masse, then usually they will get it (…eventually). This is pretty much what happened with svn → git.

                                  2. 11

                                    It’s not git, but the other various services tacked on (issues, the workflow, CI, etc) that have basically become synonymous with ‘git hosting’, which require more and more effect to break free from once you become invested in using it.

                                    1. 21

                                      That’s not “Embrace, extend, extinguish”, that’s just building a successful product that people find pleasant to use. There is no “Microsoft git” and you can download all your data from GitHub. If you want to make the argument that there should be more competition in the market, then okay, fair enough. But again, very different from EEE.

                                      There is a massive difference because EEE is all about forcing people in to using a product and is malicious, whereas building a very popular product isn’t. There is nothing forcing you to use GitHub. If you want to use any competitor, then you have 100% freedom in doing so.

                                      GitHub is also quite far removed from being a monopoly. If anything, then lowering their prices is proof of that; monopolists don’t lower prices.

                                      more and more effect to break free from once you become invested in using it.

                                      This is true for anything. I stuck to tcsh for years because converting my extensive tcsh config to zsh would be a lot of work, as would re-learning all the tcsh tricks I knew. Even now I just stick with Vim even though Spacemacs is probably better just because I’m so invested in it.

                                      1. 4

                                        There is a massive difference because EEE is all about forcing people in to using a product and is malicious, whereas building a very popular product isn’t. There is nothing forcing you to use GitHub. If you want to use any competitor, then you have 100% freedom in doing so.

                                        But if you want to contribute to a project, and their workflow is centred on Github (push requests, CI, etc.) then you are kind of required to comply. And all that infrastructure is also not that easy to move around – or at the very least it’s an effort that would require a great dissatisfaction with GitHub.

                                        1. 6

                                          But if you want to contribute to a project, and their workflow is centred on Github (push requests, CI, etc.) then you are kind of required to comply.

                                          In Microsoft’s defense, that was true of GitHub long before Microsoft took over.

                                          1. 1

                                            I wasn’t “attacking” Microsoft, but rather GitHub. The change in ownership is more of a formality to me ^^.

                                          2. 4

                                            But if you want to contribute to a project, and their workflow is centred on Github (push requests, CI, etc.) then you are kind of required to comply.

                                            This is true for any workflow. I really don’t like mailing lists or IRC for example, but if that’s what a project uses then I’m “required to comply” just as much as you are “required to comply” with my GitHub workflow (although I won’t turn down patches sent over email, if that works better for you).

                                            Unfortunately, there is no way to satisfy everyone here; different people just have different preferences, and the GitHub workflow works well for many.

                                            1. 1

                                              Sure, but you don’t need an account for mailing lists, you don’t have to sign anything. Also, due to it’s decentralized nature, it’s easier to prevent a lock-in.

                                              GitHub workflow works well for many.

                                              Exactly! This pushes developers to adopt GitHub, as they fear (and I have experienced myself) that any other platform will have less interactions (bug reports, patches, etc.).

                                              1. 1

                                                You need an email account, and you typically need to subscribe to the email list (resulting in a lot of email in my inbox I don’t care about). It also doesn’t offer things like a good code review UI, which are IMO much easier in a GitHub-like UI, especially for larger patches. I appreciate it works better for some, but there’s a lot of friction involved for many.

                                                If you’re really opposed to the GitHub-style UI, then my suggestion would be to work on an alternative which doesn’t have the downsides you see, but also removes the friction and UX issues that many really do experience. “Everyone is doing it wrong” is not really very constructive; people usually do it “wrong” for a reason, so best to address that.

                                                This pushes developers to adopt GitHub, as they fear (and I have experienced myself) that any other platform will have less interactions (bug reports, patches, etc.).

                                                The same applies not just to GitHub, but also git itself. I much prefer mercurial myself, but there’s much more friction involved for (potential) contributors. Related thing I wrote a few years ago: I don’t like git, but I’m going to migrate my projects to it

                                                The problem with these kind of tools that everyone needs to use, is that a lot of people don’t really like using and learning multiple of them, so there may be kind of a natural tendency to go towards a single tool. There are certainly some advantages with having these kind of “industry standards”.

                                                1. 1

                                                  It’s true that subscribing to mailing lists can be annoying. But personally, I don’t have a “everyone is doing it wrong” approach, as I think that sourcehut is building towards a very good system that both works for web-oriented and mail-oriented users.

                                                  And regarding git, I think that main difference is tool vs service. Git is free software, I don’t need permission to use it, not could it be revoked. GitHub is a platform with their own interests. But other than that, I understand your point. I too find hg interesting, but what keeps me from transitioning is manly that in Emacs, Magit is too comfortable to git up.

                                          3. 2

                                            That’s not “Embrace, extend, extinguish”, that’s just building a successful product that people find pleasant to use. There is no “Microsoft git” and you can download all your data from GitHub. If you want to make the argument that there should be more competition in the market, then okay, fair enough. But again, very different from EEE.

                                            There is a massive difference because EEE is all about forcing people in to using a product and is malicious, whereas building a very popular product isn’t. There is nothing forcing you to use GitHub. If you want to use any competitor, then you have 100% freedom in doing so.

                                            Everything you say also applies to the classic examples of EEE like extending HTML in IE. Every example of EEE is “building a successful product that people find pleasant to use,” so I don’t know why you juxtapose those things. Users of IE in the 90s had 100% freedom in switching to Netscape too. If you think these are fine justifications, you simply have no problem with EEE.

                                            And there is “Microsoft git,” it’s called “hub.”

                                            1. 2

                                              Extending HTML is different because it forced Netscape and other vendors to “catch up” or their product would be “defective” (in the eyes of the user, since it didn’t render websites correct). This is the devious part of the “Extend” phase because it seems like it’s adding useful helpful new features, but it’s done with the intention to make the competitor look “broken”.

                                              As I said, GitHub has made no attempts to extend git in that way, or even hinted at attempts to do so.

                                              1. 1

                                                Adding helpful new features always has the effect of making the competitor look broken, and we have no way of evaluating intentions in either case. Extending git with pull requests makes repo.or.cz look defective because you can’t send pull requests with hub to a repo hosted there. It’s not different.

                                                1. 1

                                                  It’s just some UI to improve the process, not a incompatibility. To me it sounds like you’re basically saying “you can’t improve your product to make it easier to use, because that will make competitors seem bad”, which I find a rather curious line of thinking.

                                                  1. 1

                                                    I’m not saying anything about what a company can and can’t do. Hub is not compatible with standard git hosting, so that seems like an incompatibility to me.

                                                    You seem to have decided that EEE is inherently bad and malicious, yet it was a phrase originally used proudly by Microsoft employees. They were proud because they viewed their actions exactly the way you view the current GitHub developments. If you have no problem with proprietary git extensions, what’s wrong with upgrading a browser with proprietary extensions to enable video playback in a web page?

                                                    1. 1

                                                      Yeah, a solution that works for both would be best. I’m not entirely sure of SourceHut will be that – at least from the perspective of a “web hipster” like me – but I’m keeping an eye on it. You can already do that with GitHub to some degree as well btw; for example Vim sends all issues to the mailing list, and you can (and many people do) reply from there. You can probably do something similar with PRs if you want.

                                                      You seem to have decided that EEE is inherently bad and malicious, yet it was a phrase originally used proudly by Microsoft employees. They were proud because they viewed their actions exactly the way you view the current GitHub developments. If you have no problem with proprietary git extensions, what’s wrong with upgrading a browser with proprietary extensions to enable video playback in a web page?

                                                      Like I said, I don’t think it’s the same since the git protocol isn’t modified. It’s more similar to the video popup thingy Firefox added a while ago: it didn’t modify anything about the underlying protocols and standards, but it did modify the UI based on those standards.

                                                      I can see where you’re coming from since you’re “forced to use GitHub”, but isn’t that the case for any issue tracker I add? If I self-host some Ruby on Rails issue tracker, and maybe a code review system, then you’re “forced” to use that too, right? I’m not sure how different that would be to GitHub?

                                                      At the end of the day, I think by far the most important issue is that git remains the open and free protocol and tool that it is today; issue tracker, code review, and whatnot are all very convenient and nice, but they’re really just auxiliary features of relative low importance to the actual code. By far the most important thing is that everyone is able to clone, share, and modify the software freely, and GitHub doesn’t stand in the way of that at all as far as I can see.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        I’m still not clear what problem you have with using otherwise-ignored HTML to embed useful features in a web page. Microsoft didn’t modify HTTP.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          A webpage is inaccessible if I view it in a browser which doesn’t implement the feature (how inaccessible depends on the details), whereas git is still the same git with GitHub.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            That is true of any advance in web standards. Web pages which use those standards are inaccessible from browsers which don’t implement those features.

                                            2. 1

                                              That’s not “Embrace, extend, extinguish”, that’s just building a successful product that people find pleasant to use. There is no “Microsoft git” and you can download all your data from GitHub. If you want to make the argument that there should be more competition in the market, then okay, fair enough. But again, very different from EEE.

                                              There is a massive difference because EEE is all about forcing people in to using a product and is malicious, whereas building a very popular product isn’t.

                                              If we ignore the pricing, it’s not “extinguish”, but it’s pretty clearly “embrace” and at least a little bit of “extend”.

                                              There is nothing forcing you to use GitHub. If you want to use any competitor, then you have 100% freedom in doing so.

                                              Yes, currently that is true. But if Microsoft is pricing GH below cost, it will make it hard for those commercial competitors to make enough money to continue existing.

                                              GitHub is also quite far removed from being a monopoly. If anything, then lowering their prices is proof of that; monopolists don’t lower prices.

                                              Pricing yourself lower than your costs is exactly how you use money to build a monopoly though.

                                              All the being said, I don’t think anyone is worried about them “extinguishing” git, because you can’t extinguish open source software. But, it definitely doesn’t look good for GH’s commercial competitors.

                                          4. 2

                                            Applied to a service, what they’d do is something to get people to put their critical assets in it, build their business processes on using it, eliminate the better competition somehow if possible, and lock-in results. Once locked-in, they start jacking up prices, reducing quality, selling them out to advertisers, etc.

                                            Microsoft has a long history of that for its own products and its acquisitions. I decided to recommend nobody depend on Github the second that… they were a SaaS startup. They usually become evil after acquisition or I.P.O.. If not a startup, the second Microsoft bought them.

                                      2. 2

                                        Is this is a sign of Microsoft not doing so great with GitHub? This basically creates less incentives to pay for a team account? I understand that microsoft has very big pockets… but how on earth do they even plan to make money nowadays?

                                        1. 9

                                          This tweet from the GitHub CEO says that their enterprise product is how they make money:

                                          I’ve been excited for this day for nearly 18 months, and it’s great to finally be here.

                                          Thanks to our Enterprise customers whose rapidly growing use of GitHub makes this change possible for all the startups and small teams around the world. 🙏

                                          1. 2

                                            It’s about expanding the user base and getting as much control over the largest number of people possible. The book Surveillance Capitalism goes into this.

                                            1. 1

                                              This basically creates less incentives to pay for a team account?

                                              There are still a bunch of features that are only for public repos with the free tier. Having those available for free is good marketing: everyone learns how they work and then wants them in their work repos. If anything, I’d think it would increase the incentives for buying the teams version. $4/month is basically noise on top of an engineer’s salary (let alone the total cost of employing an engineer). If those engineers are 1% more productive as a result of the features in the paid edition, it’s a clear win.

                                            2. -2
                                              1. 4

                                                Gitlab does the same. If you don’t want to be subject to US sanctions, then you’ll have to use a service hosted outside of the US: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/07/19/gcp-move-update/

                                                1. 1

                                                  I stopped trusting and relying on third-party services for critical stuff long ago (git/email/storage/etc) and self-host all these.