As stated at the end of my comment, a fair price is what they decide to charge. I simply don't like people to try and spin a price increase into a freebie.

You seem to be ignoring the comments to the contrary made on your original comment when stating this.

Sure it's going to cost some orgs more, and it makes sense that it does. I'd wager that data at rest (lots of repos) costs a hell of lot less to run than active requests (lots of users).

Personally my bill will be going down from $25 to $7, and I'm fine with that.

My companies bill will be going down from $650/month to $583/month.

The point we are raising is there is an entire category of companies (agencies / software house) where the price is going up dramatically (5x, 10x or more). This happens because of the choice of billing outside collaborators (even read-only ones).

Lots of collaboraters does not translate to lots of requests. I'd be totally fine being charged by size of data, number of requests,... Number of people that I allow to view my code is a very bad metric for me, especially given that most of those people are already part of a paid account.

> active requests (lots of users).

Also, more users = more problems.

Isn't that one of the points of marketing: Highlight issues as a positives to decrease their impact to sales?

ps. No pricing model will suit every org. The current model based on repo numbers has horrid steps which make no sense. eg. 125to300 private repos = $200to$450 cost. So if you need 126 repos you pay more than twice as much for that extra 1 repo. That makes little sense to me.

yes, but you are comparing apples to oranges. If you had to jump from 125 to 300 users in ONE step as per the current pricing model instead of paying only for the marginal next user.

Recognizing the repository steps are a pain for customers and not moving towards a pricing per _single_ repository, say between 1$ or 2$ per private repository - is just plain misleading. They could have still thrown in the personal plan with a large number of private repositories and fewer collaborators.

I'm not directly comparing, only highlighting the step issue.

To me, give a per user or private repo cost. Allow the customer to choose between user or repo model, each addition costs a single fixed unit. Simple!

I'd fire the PR department if they didn't give this a positive spin.

That doesn't mean that customers can't be annoyed being sold for stupid. The release announcement forgets to mention that collaborators are now costly - either a stupid oversight or part of the positive spin.

A good marketing department should display things in a positive fashion, but they should also strive to be honest, so they're not loosing credibility.

"loosing credibility" is subjective in this case. Some orgs/people will be better off, some won't.

I recall GitHub doing some extensive research on what their customer based wanted. This is most likely the outcome of that research.

If I were to migration our org. over we would be worse off. Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. Poorly thought through perhaps?

> Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous.

I never said that I consider the move disingenuous. Almost no change will unilaterally benefit everybody. I dislike the communication that reads as if the change is unilaterally beneficial - where it clearly is not.

I didn't say you did. Well, I don't think I did. Either way, we agree it wasn't disingenuous. I'd also agree this change won't be beneficial to all.

And GitHub is also allowing everyone to make a choice. "...you'll have at least 12 months notice before any mandated change to your plan."

I see it is honest and very positive and supportive

You mean... you don't like it when the marketing department of a profit-making enterprise does marketing in an attempt to make more profit?

I work in a small agency, and our GitHub bill will go down as a result of these changes.

Yes, that type of "marketing". It's bullshit.

It's not like it's a unilateral "price increase". My bill, for example, will be going down as a result of this. Personally I'm pretty stoked about this change. YMMV.

> GitHub seems cheap to me

At $9/user/mo, github is 900% more expensive than the $1/user/mo direct competitor BitBucket. BitBucket uses brackets rather than pure scaling, but their most expensive option - 101 users require the $200 unlimited accounts plan - is still only $2/user.

If $8 is a big deal per user, how little are you paying the poor bastards?

I guess he's not paying his employees 900% market rate, why would he pay 900% market rate for GitHub instead of BitBucket? Just trying to point that your logic doesn't check out.

I personally like the new pricing, but as a non-paying user of GitHub and BitBucket... I'll stick to BitBucket for my private repos :) I guess they don't give a damn as I'm still not paying either :)

You believe bitbucket represents the market?

Market (feature set requirements) is different for everybody. If bitbucket's features are enough for me to migrate off github it's absolutely market. 9 times cheaper at that.

What's so broken in Bitbucket that's not worth at 1/9th the price of Github.com?

I don't know who gives them advice, but that's just horrible.

First, people ran to bitbucket visit if the per repo pricing. Now that that's been fixed, we're faced with high costs per user. That difference can be used to purchase other Atlassian products like Jira and Bamboo.

How can github beat that value? I think github is satisfied with bring #1 for hosting open source software.

god beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords between admins for example or private config for your webserver. Suddenly you see yourself at 394$ compared to the 7$ you paid before.

> beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords

Passwords emphatically do not belong in git.

Your private repos should be maintained such that accessing them would not compromise your security.

if you share Ansible inventory files that are encrypted with ansible-vault, then this is not happening. But i still wouldn't want to have a public repository with the files and the metadata of servers that is clearly not meant for public consumption.

Let me brig another example for OSS projects that could need a private repository: branches for security fixes that are not public yet.

> "branches for security fixes that are not public yet"

A private git server would probably be better for that, but also wouldn't cost $0.

> a single private repository to share passwords between admins

Please tell me you're kidding.

I hope that any team using github to share passwords is driven to move away from that method because of this price change. That's a bad bad idea.

Why? If it is Encrypted in ansible vault or something it's not a terrible way to keep your creds.

I think that wasn't clear initially. But granted, valid point.

If they're encrypted, you can put them in a public repo.

Call it overkill, but I would see no reason not to go both private repo + encrypted creds.

Is ansible vault encryption brute force proof? I have no idea. I could spend an hour and figure out. But why not just follow decent engineering principles and double lock my door?

What's wrong with using Dropbox or something like that?

Bitbucket seems to be at least in large part a subsidized loss-leader to the rest of the Atlassian infrastructure. And, legit question: how do you feel about Jira?

I don't mind Jira, with the exclusion of the abominably confusing user management[1]. I've never found a ticketing system that didn't suck in some major way; it's a difficult thing to get right.

[1] Somewhere I've got a screenshot I made that has arrows pointing to the four locations in Confluence where you can find different ways of adjusting user perms (jira uses the same user system). This doesn't include the location where you actually manage your Atlassian licenses...

It's actually 2500% more expensive for the first 5 users. Github will never learn.

I think for the first five users the price is capped at $25 total ($5/user).

I think you are correct. Boy that is a confusing way to word it on Github's end.

Maybe it's time to charge more for those closed source projects, just saying..

* 800% more expensive