1. 28
  1.  

  2. 16

    This is great news for personal accounts.

    For organization accounts, this can cost significantly more money. The pricing announcement completely glosses over this fact. I used to have a paid Github organization account with 2 huge monorepos and 21 team members. Before I would be paying $25/m, today I would be paying $169/m. If they hadn’t already lost me as a customer, they sure would have with this announcement.

    (On a related note, I don’t care much for splitting up a project across multiple repositories because it makes it more difficult to coordinate changes across repository boundaries.)

    1. 14

      Counterpoint: You have a 21 member team but can’t afford $169/month? For every little service, sure, but for something as central to what you do as GitHub, it doesn’t seem that expensive to me.

      (Bias alert: I’ve pretty much only worked in open source and small teams, so I have less personal experience with this setup, so I am probably missing things.)

      EDIT: elsewhere, already got one example. Consultancies who work with orgs who don’t have their own github, who make a private repo for them and add people. Makes sense there, as your bill only goes up, forever…

      1. 13

        A couple of reasons why I don’t feel comfortable paying that much money, even though I can afford it:

        • My # of team members isn’t the # of people on payroll.

        • I don’t have VC Cash™ to burn.

        • I don’t feel like the network effects of GH (the only compelling feature of GH in my book) are worth the price. GitLab will host my project for free. Even if there was no possible way I would ever need the money saved, I would rather donate the difference to charity.

        • I don’t want to reward a company which has historically been terrible at responding to user feedback. It’s great that the Dear GitHub letter finally got them to improve their core product a bit, but…

        1. 7

          That’s totally fair. I think part of this divergence here is that a lot of these things you mention aren’t really about the pricing, but about GitHub itself. Regardless of the affordability question, I can also totally understand that if a vendor you’re not super happy with increases their prices, maybe it’s time to look elsewhere.

          Thanks for adding some perspective :)

          1. 4

            GitLab will host my project for free.

            Is that a thing now? Running the foundation of a business on free services?

            1. 2

              I reject that the foundation of the business is wherever you happen to store your Git repositories. Anyway, I haven’t noticed much of a difference after moving to GitLab, except that I sometimes have to check another website than GH

              1. 2

                If it were only that. But the browsing / issues / PR / Code review workflow integrated into Github is what separates it from a server everyone can SSH into. There are other options sure, but that’s what teams use Github for and the way it’s become the workflow of a lot of open source projects means people know how it works from a muscle memory standpoint.

                1. 1

                  I reject that the foundation of the business is wherever you happen to store your Git repositories.

                  It’s also internal documentation in the wiki, workflows around development, automated tools that are configured to run against GitHub repos or their API. I find it terribly useful to have commits and issue activity linked to high-level business plans, time tracker or even billing systems.

                  That said, this pricing change made me move my own little business back from an Organisation to a personal account with unlimited repos.

                2. 2

                  If a business has the opportunity to use free services or free software, why wouldn’t they take that opportunity? An example is Facebook, which is arguably the largest open source software company in the world. If they can avoid having to pay for a piece of software or service, they’ll take up the opportunity.

                  1. 5

                    Software? Yes, absolutely. Service? No.

                    1. 1

                      They have open sourced their in house code review, etc tooling: http://phabricator.org/

                3. 3

                  It takes a day (maybe $300 of someone’s time?) to set up git daemon + a bug tracker/mailing list, and that would save him almost $2k/yr.

                  No need to throw cash away.

                  1. 13

                    Servers always require maintenance. It’s not that simple. Also, that old saying:

                    Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.

                    1. 3

                      Not wrong, but the server less company is like the paperless office. Sounds cool, until you need some paper and then it’s a disaster where you’re running down the street to a FedEx store at 4:57pm.

                      Once you’re paying $10/user/month times a dozen services, you’re talking real money.

                      1. 3

                        Sure thing. But implying you can replace GitHub in an afternoon for $300 isn’t accurate.

                        There are good reasons to host your own stuff!

                        1. 2

                          Github, no, but I think I could stand up a simple repository host with gitolite and gitweb in about that time for about that cost. (Granted, I’ve done it before.) Git itself is super-easy to host.

                          Personally, I would always self-host the master copy of my repositories (even if I were mirroring to/from Github for the various integrations) for lock-in prevention and because you should back up your git repositories, something which to the best of my knowledge Github doesn’t do or offer.

                    2. 1

                      I don’t know what environment you’re in, but in a major American metro area, $300 is more like the fully-loaded cost of an hour of a sysadmin’s time.

                      1. 1

                        UK sysadmin salaries are closer to $30/hr than $300/hr. Even with overhead it’d be hard to get anywhere near that.

                        1. 1

                          Come on over, we have high wages and all the guns you can shoot!

                  2. 3

                    I do not have an organization account but isnt this answered in the FAQ:

                    I am an existing organization customer and prefer the per-repository plans. Can I remain on my current plan?

                    1. 4

                      Isn’t it?

                      Will GitHub force me to move to per-user pricing after 12 months?

                      No. At this time we are not enforcing a timeline to move and if in the future we do decide to set a timeline we are committing to giving you at least 12 months.

                      Emphasis mine.

                  3. 11

                    This is very harmful for orgs that gave very liberal access to some of those repos for small changes. We have ~30 collaborators that just contributed tiny fixes to e.g. our website. This would blow up the price for us in manyfold and we have to remove access for many people that we’d just like to keep an eye on a few things.

                    The fact that private collaborators also count is also badly communicated in the offical announcements:

                    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11673271

                    1. 2

                      The page says that they won’t be mandating a change from per-repo to per-user pricing for Organizations. You are able to keep it exactly as it is for now. And they said they would provide 12 months of warning for any mandated change.

                      1. 1

                        Could this be solved by splitting your organization into two?

                        1. 3

                          Not quite, they are collaborators to private repos. That means I have to prune them (fair enough) and pay 9$ every time I want to do that.

                      2. 7

                        This is the next move of GitHub to be more oriented towards enterprise and larger companies.

                        Small companies like the resource model: they are one entity anyways and they most likely grow with the number of components they need to build. They’ve grown to starting a new project, so the cost of using Github grows with them.

                        For larger Enterprises, this is a problem: they prefer (for audit and access reasons) to just have one org at Github, but the old price model doesn’t fit their needs. When you add a new project and hit the wall, who’s paying the steep increase in fees? Which allocated budget will that be mapped to? For them, per-seat licensing is much easier: it just adds on top of every person allocated to the project. That’s easy to calculate. GH Enterprise used to serve that need.

                        As I wrote before: GitHub is attackable now. That’s not a particular problem, they are large enough, but they left the market of smaller companies.

                        1. 6

                          keep it really private with gitlab, without any restrictions. (behind a VPN to be 100% sure, as some holes are found from time to time)

                          1. 3

                            I agree that the phrasing of the announcement is slimy PR-speak, but the new pricing structure is certainly interesting—I can think of organizations I’ve worked at where it will make github dramatically more affordable (~5 devs, 30+ repos).

                            1. 3

                              Sure. There will be edge cases that go both ways. A friend just tweeted that their bill will go from ~£200 to ~£2000 – an order of magnitude more expensive. (However, this is the UK government so I’m sure they can find some loose change to cover that.)

                              1. 3

                                For sure there are many organizations for which it will be much much worse. I can only assume Github has done the numbers and figures most of them are large enough to find some loose change, as you say.

                                1. 3

                                  I don’t think it’s an edge-case at all. I’d guess many organisations have more repos than members.

                                  FWIW, for us, our bill just went from $50 / month to @25 / month, and now we have unlimited private repos. And considering that we were one repo short of the cap from the old plan… yeah, I’ll take this new plan in a heart-beat.

                                  1. 2

                                    FWIW, for us, our bill just went from $50 / month to @25 / month, and now we have unlimited private repos.

                                    Ours would go from $200/month to $350/month if we moved to this new plan. We’re using 64 out of 125 private repos in our current plan, so I’m guessing we’re sticking to that :-)

                                    If we were limited by our repo allowance and were considering the switch, we could probably make the new plan a bit cheaper if we were willing to change a few things:

                                    • We use GitHub OAuth for our internal documentation, so everyone in the company need GitHub accounts for that. Indeed, we have a few people whose sole reason for having a GitHub account is this access.
                                    • We have an Alumni team for past employees, with no access to any private repos. We feel this is a nice way to let people show where they used to work. The cost is manageable now, but considering this is a number that would only ever go up, we would have to reconsider that at some point. We could perhaps we could set up a separate “$COMPANY Alumni” organisation to host these instead, but it doesn’t feel as nice.

                                    And considering that we were one repo short of the cap from the old plan… yeah, I’ll take this new plan in a heart-beat.

                                    I would too in your situation!

                                    1. 2

                                      Ours would go from $450 to $448, but honestly we’re adding people faster than repos. That said, this provides a strong negative incentive to moving our company wiki and documentation to GitHub – it will remain external.

                              2. 3

                                When I saw the headline, I thought they were trying to complete with gitlab’s pricing. Guess not.

                                1. 1

                                  Pricing works for us… dropped from Gold at $100/month to $25/month. We have forty-odd private repos but only a few developers and CI bots.

                                  1. 1

                                    Oh, excellent. I really needed just ONE more private repo, and was right at the limit of my price tier, and I’ve already deleted repos or made them public for the ones where I feel those are appropriate actions…