News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us). Parent comment

Re:Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us) by mcintyre1994 on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @06:14AM (#5212492)
BitBucket's pricing is at $1/seat/month in the worst case though (assuming you match one of their intervals there). But yep I agree, Github is surely significantly more profitable than BitBucket.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us) by RyanZAG on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @06:45AM (#5212587)
Definitely agreed - I use BitBucket to store some private projects, which also means I don't pay them anything (yet). Seems not terribly profitable - I keep a backup elsewhere assuming Bitbucket will go down eventually from lack of funds!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us) by joshuakarjala on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @07:15AM (#5212666)
I wouldn't worry so much about that.

Seems like Bitbucket was acquired by Atlassian for two reasons:

1. Free DCVS hosting as a free perk to existing customers, with tight integration to existing Atlassian products.

2. Free DCVS hosting to non-customers, with the hopes of converting some to the Atlassian suite.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why GitHub’s pricing model stinks (for us) by pearle on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @07:58AM (#5212823)
A while back my team switched to from an internal SVN system to BitBucket. We're now buying into the Atlassian OnDemand platform so it was definitely #2 for us.
[ Parent | on HN ]