This "everything must be free" mentality is driving me crazy. And yes, $2/month/user is still ranging in the "free" region, even $4 is ludicrously cheap when you are even a minute more productive each day. Somebody has to pay Gitlab's employees and VC money wont do this indefinitely.
Besides, epics and roadmaps pushes the price to $19/user/month, which we can't afford. $4/user/month might be possible, but the epics and roadmap features are a must have at that point.
I think something like $3000 one time payment should be enough to clone the feature from scratch.
It would be nice to have country-dependent pricing, relative to their poverty index or some other quantifier. That way everyone could afford to pay for the service and would "feel" the price in a same way.
I am aware of expenses that are the same for maintainers, no matter where their clients come from. But wouldn't it be nice?
In our company we are going to experiment with such pricing to give everyone equal chance to use our software. Some countries are going to have it for free.
In many parts of the world, $200 is a salary.
The tiered pricing concept and the upgrade pushed by induced demand and "Parkinson's law" has changed the world as it allows companies to start working using free or low priced tiers instead of needing high initial capital. As these companies grow, they will use more features and pay more.
I'm not sure how to understand this. In American practice, salaries are quoted annually. You pretty much have to look at sub-Saharan Africa to find annual earnings that low. In Chinese practice, they're quoted monthly. That covers a lot more of the world.
Mostly this comment is a note that "is a salary" isn't really a meaningful predicate. It means wildly different things in different places.
edit: just checked:
education: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/education/
opensource: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/program/
But these pages are not easy to find, I had to use search. This should be mentioned on the pricing page.
TBH all these features on Gold and Ultimate for free are game changers (specially Gold since you won't need to manage and install so many things that used to be many different systems), GitLab should advertise it more.
> Your project must not seek to make a profit from the resulting project software
My project is my job, it's OS but I need to profit from it. I don't mind paying, but just per project. I just don't want to pay for the thousands of people on it who's just making spelling corrections.
> Your project must not seek to make a profit from the resulting project software
Maybe Gitlab should also stop seeking profit from their project software.
"Open source is great! We heavily rely on open source! We support open source! So let us maybe give you a key that lifts artificial restrictions from our proprietary code. Only if you're open source. Oh and you mustn't do exactly the thing we do: try to make profit with open source."
If I had made something Gitlab needs, they would not need to ask me to give anything for free because that's what I do by default. I don't build artificial scarcity in my stuff.
Not per employee, per user! Letting customers file issues and participate in the process can be impossibly expensive if they're paying $10/month for your product.
Admittedly the $99/seat/month supports free guest users.
What would really help me is a self-hosted pricing tier that includes things like epics and roadmap management, for something like $2/user/month. No need for support, just a way to contribute to the product without breaking the bank. After all, we're already self-hosting the software, so without support exceeding that of the free tier it wouldn't cost Gitlab a thing, but it would allow smaller companies to support Gitlab financially.