You cannot seriously believe that GitLab is a decade long bait-and-switch tactic.

If it was done in a year or immediately after gaining huge momentum, then sure we'll listen, but again, GitHub has been around for so long that it's clear they simply couldn't predict the growth and handle the increase in cost.

No, I do not believe it is a "decade long" bait-and-switch.

I believe it is an opportunistic bait-and-switch.

I don't know exactly what's going on at GitLab, but this is a classic pattern when the motivations of founders ("Let's make something cool to help other coders, and make a buck in the process") are supplanted by the motivations of VCs ("Fuck the coders, lets make as much money as possible in the term.")

Edit: Can add to that second sentence "...and exit just after the profits tick-up, but before the market has enough time to migrate off our platform.")

It's hard to tell if something is genuine or satire these days isn't it...

Is there a word for this type of business model? Offering a service for free until they become the de-facto standard, and then start squeezing people?

Adopt Extend Extinguish

Monopoly

Gitlab is far from a monopoly by any definition. The name for it is VC-backed capitalism. Burn through money to buy a market— run at a loss longer than your competitors can, then flip and start hiking prices once you are dominant. That was never a good strategy for Gitlab, though, so I’m surprised they took that road.

> The name for it is VC-backed capitalism

The goal of which is to seek monopoly or at worst stable oligopoly.

Anyway, GP was asking what you call it when you saturate/dominate a market, become the standard and then raise prices on your captured audience. This is definitional monopoly. VC-backed capitalism is a predictable symptom emerging from the possbility of such outcomes.