24 Comments

  1. James Giroux

    We moved our private repos from GitHub to a self-hosted DO/GitLab setup last year. We were able to import all our repos really easily from GH and the costs are fixed to what we pay each month for a Digital Ocean droplet (currently $10/mo I believe). They have a one-click install right from their droplet startup and we haven’t really missed GH to be honest.

    Report

  2. Chip Bennett

    So, basically, GitHub’s new pricing model is to collaborative code-hosting what Starbucks’ change to their rewards program was to brewed coffee drinkers?

    Report

    • KTS915

      Great analogy, Chip! I can’t stand Starbucks myself, but I keep hearing about that change from family and colleagues!

      Report

  3. Alec

    Wow, do I hate it when Samuel Otto Wood is right. This change kicks us right in the shins as we get by happily on a $22/month plan and the new pricing would take us up over $100. Nothing like what happened to Pippin but enough that we’d rather put Git onto one of our VPS and use Github for open source collaboration only. And without having everything in one place, Github just became a whole lot less convenient.

    It looks like Github has left themselves lots of room to backpedal. Let’s hope they do.

    PS. Monthly SAAS and plugin renewal fees really do add up. Into the thousands. Fine when the weather is fair but taking on too much fixed overhead leaves a business in a difficult position if and when the weather ever changes.

    Report

  4. Derek

    We’re a publicly funded, open-source project. We currently pay $300/yr for ~65 people and only have a few private repos (mainly for new/testing projects). New pricing has us paying $6500/yr! A change of over 20x is hard to swallow when the service doesn’t change at all!

    Since we’re open-source… we don’t want more repos! Unlimited repos means absolutely nothing to us.

    We need to be able to distinguish between “collaborators” on the open-source repos and organization “users” that need access to the private repos.

    One thing we might do is split our organization: we may have our open source organization that ONLY has open repos and only a couple of real “users”… and then our private organization for the few users that work on private stuff.

    Ironically, this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what GitHub was trying to achieve here!

    Report

  5. Brian Layman

    Personally, this is why I like Bitbucket and will just create a free account with private repo for each client that needs one. Monthly charge – nothing.

    Report

    • modemlooper

      Well, its not OK to “work” the system and github is worth paying for but as noted above they added no value and increased the cost for some users by thousands of percent.

      Report

  6. Jerry Nixon

    Eventually, even good companies can’t resist the evil.
    Viva la whippersnapper du jour.

    Report

  7. Jeffr0

    Let’s go back to 2004 when MovableType announced licensing changes and more importantly, pricing changes. The mass exodus to WordPress ensued! https://web.archive.org/web/20050216134428/http://www.sixapart.com/about/corner/2004/05/its_about_time.html

    Will the same thing happen to GitHub as hundreds or thousands flock to competing services or host their repos themselves on a VPS? Tune in in a few months to find out.

    Report

  8. Devin Walker

    A painful change indeed. Let’s hope they hear the backlash and unwind this madness.

    Report

  9. Jeffr0

    GitLab published their response to GitHub’s pricing change https://about.gitlab.com/2016/05/11/git-repository-pricing/

    Report

    • Andreas Nurbo

      I moved to GitLab from GitHub for hosted services but GitLab was very very slow so I moved to BitBucket instead. I have to say I like BitBucket repo handling more than both GL and GH. I can have both organisations and folders. I really like that.

      Report

  10. Tada Burke

    Ah, the days are not far gone when we used to push, pull and deploy via chains of post-commit hooks without Github. I think since people are becoming more and more Shell savvy, rolling your own box doesn’t seem daunting anymore. Internally, I can’t ever justify a “private” repo on a 3rd party. But I guess there’s a huge turnkey market and Github does a great job supplying the demand. Too bad the new structure sux0rz ;) Forge on grasshoppa, forge on…

    Report

  11. Ron

    Gasp…..

    Open Source devs (aka freeloaders that think the world owes them) are suddenly being asked to pay real world prices and they’re all pissed off.

    In other news….water is wet.

    Report

  12. Andrew

    I don’t see what the fuss is about, to be honest. If you’re on a team that has enough people to now cost hundreds of dollars, if not a thousand or two…how much money are you making with that sized team, and why do you feel that Github deserves only $25 of that?

    It’s still worth it.

    Report

    • Andreas Nurbo

      What the people are complaining about is that they add a lot of customers and or other contributors to their private repos and that way increase the amount of accounts that require access. Essentially they use the private repos as a private open access repo. If that makes any sense.

      Report

      • Andrew

        Ahhhhh — gotcha. That does make sense. Good point, and thank you for clearing that up. I had mistook the “griping” as majorly team-based only (like…agency-type teams) Hadn’t thought about much from the customer end of things.

        Report

  13. fwolf

    well … Bitbucket is definitely not what I’d call “competition”. Their whole system is geared toward OS GUI usage, not classic git commandline. Which wouldnt be that bad if there was an actual cross-platform client, but they think only in terms Mac and Windoze.

    Yes, they got a web interface, but just pointing out THIS request thread, ages old, for the simple feature of tagging your branch / setting up a release in source view: https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/7399/tag-from-source-view-bb-8612

    Atlassian, the company behind Bitbucket, doesn’t really seem to care what the customers of Bitbucket want. IMO they mainly added this kind of “git space” feature to haul folks in from other platforms, but with the strategy of converting them to use their major product line, eg. JIRA. Oh, and maybe stop complaints of existing JIRA customers about not having a web-based repo to connect with JIRA.

    Just my .02 cents of life experience,
    cu, w0lf.

    Report

    • mark k.

      As someone that works with BB for few years the only thing I have to say is “ha?”. For basic git usage there is no difference at all neither at command line (lol, obviously), web interface or desktop app. GH has somewhat nicer GUI for web and desktop and that is about it. The differences between them are more in the overall project management workflow.

      Report

      • Andreas Nurbo

        I like how I can organise BB projects more than how GitHub handles it. Run into some issues with integrating services and using composer with the https url compared to git@ url. BB is overall though a very pleasant experience.

        Report

  14. Matt

    When you consider a fairly small web development agency with eight developers and ongoing contracts with a dozen clients. Paying the fees for their developers isn’t a problem, but what about their clients? Many clients expect access to the repositories being used to host their code — that can include the company CEO, various managers, internal web development teams, marketing and sales staff, and several others. Each collaborator now incurs a cost. So, if an average of five people outside of the company require access to a repository for each project, that’s 68 monthly payments the company has to make. The first five cost $25 and the rest cost $9 per month each — a total cost of $592. That’s a massive increase on what a development agency would have previously been paying for their 12 private repositories. Not every can afford these kind of increases, that’s for sure.

    Report

    • Ian

      That’s a simple one Matt. Just don’t allow the external companies access to their repositories. I don’t think it’s “normal” to allow doing that – normally it’s the company that wrote the code who retains the IP.

      If they really want access just add those costs into an ongoing bill and pass that on to the customer. They’ll soon stop asking

      Report

  15. jonathan

    What about having a personal account for 7usd and invite your team as collaborator users?

    Report

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: