2. Go through significant organizational changes that end up with the departure of a co-founder (and more suits in the building).
3. Notice that a significant segment of your growth (VC-funded startups) are running out of money.
4. Switch to a user-based pricing to generate more revenue for investors, but spin it as a freebie "Hey! Look at the cool unlimited shit! No, no! Don't pay attention to the fact you're gonna be charged 3 times as much as before for the same service".
The bottom line is that GitHub is free to do whatever the heck they want; if they believe that charging per user is going to make more (financial) sense to them, then they can go ahead and do it.
But I'd appreciate if their PR department didn't expect us to swallow this as a positive change. Most coders understand basic maths.
This is a good deal for small organizations that like to have many small repositories (for internal libraries, utilities, micro services, modules, etc).
Sure, it screws up a few models that rely on external collaborators to get access to private repos, but those can stick with the old model for a while (at least 12 months). And in the meantime GitHub may adjust their model to accommodate those situations too.
Lastly, this is a huge freebie for individual accounts that now get unlimited repos for $7/month. That will benefit a lot of people.
So I don't see this as PR spinning, but rather as an overdue move on github's part to a model that makes a lot more sense and benefits small organizations and individuals.
I don't have any numbers on how people structure their accounts on Github, but my feeling is that this is a positive change for the majority of Github users.
Git encourages having many smaller repos for modules over massive single repos. $1/repo/month is fine for active projects, but gets expensive really fast if you want to keep archives of small private experiments around. Because of the per-repo pricing on Github, I've seen many friends and startups I've worked with keeping their open-source public repos on Github (for free), while moving private repos to Bitbucket.
I would not be surprised if this pricing change would be a net revenue loss for Github, but still implemented to avoid losing market share to Bitbucket.
I've worked at places with two developers and 150 repositories. I've worked at places with 12 developers and 5 repositories. Who do you think gets more marginal utility out of another repository?
Every place I've worked that hasn't used GitHub either did so because of a regulatory reason (HIPAA and not wanting to do on-premise) or because the per-repository pricing model made it absolutely stupid expensive, or dumped you straight into Enterprise.
If you make a lot of money off a single private repo with many users, you'll move from "so cheap you don't even need to think about it" to "market rate." If you make a little money off of a lot of repos with a handful of users, you'll move from "don't even consider it due to cost" to "let's try it out for six months and see how it goes."
And for individual accounts this is a win, win, no matter what. A flat $7 get's you unlimited repos.
GitHub is not out to get you. GitHub's "PR" department is not trying to trick you. GitHub builds and maintains a crazy powerful tool that you probably use hours a day. It should cost money, and honestly it should cost more if you ask me.
> 4. Switch to a user-based pricing to generate more revenue for investors
You add "for investors" as a slur, like it's a bad thing. Every company, public or private, has investors -- even if it's just the founders.
> but spin it as a freebie "Hey! Look at the cool unlimited shit! No, no! Don't pay attention to the fact you're gonna be charged 3 times as much as before for the same service".
Except not everyone will be charged 3x as much. Many will be charged much less. It totally depends on the setup.
I have heard countless times over the years what a pain it is for orgs to be charged per repo. It incentives monolithic repos.
Equally important: from the perspective of a company trying to maintain budgets, it might actually make more sense to _them_. Factoring Github as a per-head charge, similar to everything from Slack/Gmail/Photoshop to laptops to food and other perks to healthcare benefits, might make things easier than worrying about whether your employees are structuring their repos in a way that minimizes costs.
I get my private repos free, but I can only work with 5 people on them before I have to start paying.
Cynicism much? I don't know how your organization is structured, but for us, this will represent a price discount. Not by a huge margin now, but as the number of private repos we use will almost certainly grow faster than the number of users we have, this is definitely a better situation for us, now and in the future.
Atlassian was our only option till we shopped around till we found Visual Studio Team Services.
For a team of 4. Simply great. No need to pay for Jira or anything at this point.
Now, I won't go back to github even if it was completely free. The value Atlassian gives makes it a much better and attractive offering if you don't like Microsoft.
As an individual this model makes way more sense for me. I pay the same as before but get unlimited private repos? Awesome.
If you don't like PR, then why can't you just see past it? Why wouldn't an organization try to make it sound like a positive change? Do you expect them to come out with negative changes?
What does valuation or organization changes have to do with this anyway? Are you somehow unhappy with their company? Sure they have issues but they have also created a great platform with lots of networks effects and value. It works, and it's very cheap for what it does. And if you don't like it, there are tons of competitors.
Seriously, what's the problem here?
I too was sad to see many of the new developments at Github, but if they were money grubbing like you say, wouldn't they make everyone switch faster than this?
No comment on the rest of your post, but I doubt this part is true. I'm sure a lot of VC funded startups use GitHub, but there just aren't enough of them to be a "significant" part of the GH customer base.
it really depends on your perspective. i significantly prefer per-user over per-repo. i can see how per-repo might benefit others, however.
What to you is a fair price and why?
Team | Cost Before | Cost Now
1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25
1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70
11 repos, 5 users | $50 | $25
11 repos, 10 users | $50 | $70
5 repos, 50 users | $25 | $430
50 repos, 5 users | $100 | $25
50 repos, 50 users | $100 | $430
I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and future requests from clients) fall into this category, but who else?
The other case where it becomes cheaper is personal accounts.
In all the other cases - it just looks like a raise of prices.
I think for small companies that do all development in-house, having large number of repos, and few developer is a pretty normal.
The way I look at it, GitHub is moving to a model where they assume that the number of employees is more indicative to the amount you can afford to pay, compared to previously where having a large number of repos meant you could pay more.
It will certainly help attract smaller businesses to GitHub.
I was thrilled by this news but it's going to be completely unaffordable for us. We have 29 users and 51 external collaborators. We have recently upgraded to the Platinum plan ($2460/yr), but switching to the new user plan would raise the bill beyond affordable for us ($8k+ per year).
I think it is a big mistake to bill for external collaborators, it completely screws software houses that need this model to use GitHub.
Companies using micro services? Companies that don't want to have one big repository for their software?
Team | Cost Before | Cost Now
1 repo, 100 users | $25 | $880
It appears that along with this announcement they are raising the prices of an account.
My feeling is that this is VERY common. Most of the software companies I've worked for had between 5-25 people, max, who would need github access. But if you break things up in a granular fashion repo-wise, you can easily have dozens or more repos.
In my own case, we only have about 5 people who need access, but we're already sitting on a bunch of repos and will be needing more soon'ish. I was just debating about if/when to upgrade to the next plan level w/ github, and now I don't have to.
Obviously different companies have different scenarios, but this is a win for us, and I expect it's a win for a lot of other organizations as well.
This is a great news for me.
I personally also use Gitlab for private side project repos and only use Github now for open source projects.
With that being said, in those types of environments, cost is everything, and BitBucket is still the cheaper option.
I'm sorry, I just don't feel for these people, this is getting upset about the $0.10 charge for butter when you paid $10.00 for the popcorn.
In some ways I can see the ability to have fewer users and more repositories suited towards consultancies (specifically web development). Where there are a lot of projects and customers.
Any startup architected around microservices, for one
1. penalizes OpenSource organizations that need a few private repos for password, server configuration or other things. Was 25$ before, now for example Doctrine with 48 collaborators it would be 394$. Even if just the admins have access to that repository.
2. penalizes collaboration, inviting every non-technical person in the company? 2-5 employees of the customer? not really. Will lead organizations to create a single "non-technical" user that everyone can use to comment on stuff. not to mention bots, especially since you need users for servers in more complex deployment scenarios.
3. rewards having many repos, small throw away stuff and generally will lead to "messy" repositories lying around everywhere that are committed on once or twice and never touched again. "Not having to think about another private repository", imho will produce technical debt for organizations.
4. users in many private orgs will need to pay or get paid for every organization each. I myself will be worth 45$ now for Github, being in private repositories of five different companies.
All in all, this just shows that Github does not care as much about open source anymore as it cares about Enterprise.
Btw: Mentioning the price jumps in repository usage of the old pricing is not really helpful. Consider a pricing that would be per repository (1$ for personal, 2$ for organizations) and doesnt have jumps and compare that to the new per using pricing. The new pricing only feels better for some, because you pay marginal costs for every single user instead of the old pricing where every 50 repositories you have to suddenly pay 100$ extra.
Edit: Forgot about bots, and deployment machine users (which even Github recommends for many scenarios)
> These users do not fill a seat: Outside collaborators with access to only public repositories
https://github.com/blog/2164-introducing-unlimited-private-r...
With their 2 private UnrealEngine and UnrealTournament repos they would have been paying $25 a month and under the new pricing structure will have to pay $815,913 per month...
edit: That's based on what I can see as a UE4 subscriber, 2 private repos and 90657 users.
If we accidentally hit the upgrade button (we won't), our cost would go from 300/year to 3,648/year. Since only a small number of projects are on github - we use TFS for our main project and github for tools - its just a non-starter.
Heck, 5 "bot accounts" is $540/year to support CI builds and slack notifications. Yikes! More than we pay now.
It seems like the only shop that would save money would be the little in-house development departments with 5 people and tons of projects. However, even there they would probably forego using issues tracking in github because of the extra user cost.
I would be very interested to see real stats on how many orgs actually "upgrade" to this new more expensive pricing model vs how many stay with the more sane model. The real losers are orgs that can't sign up under the old model. The real winners will be the github alternatives (gitlab, bitbucket, etc) that can use this as an opportunity to grow user base.
For independent use it seems like a very positive change, in fact I'm guessing it's a direct challenge to GitLab. I was considering moving my stuff to GitLab simply because I'm tired of bundling experiments/prototypes into umbrella repos just to stay under the 10 repo limit at GitHub. For people like me this will be awesome, and I take it as a good sign that they're responding to the competition.
One thing I don't get however: how do they count shared access to private repos?
If I have a private repo and you have a private repo, and we each grant access to the other's repo so we can collaborate, do we now have two or four billing units?
They say "you can even invite a few collaborators" -- but how are you billed if it's more than a "few?"
I don't mind if they try to close the loophole of making up an "organization" out of a lot of "individual developers" but it seems a little vague.
I work for an academic nonprofit. Asking to spend any money is like pulling teeth, and any purchase I make has to go through many layers of bureaucracy who don't understand or care what I do and have no incentive to make my life easier. I don't want to leave Github, but now I have to, because I just won't get the approval to spend hundreds a year. But I know that's nothing to Bay Area companies, so the rest of us will just go kick rocks or something.
Do you seriously believe that programmers everywhere in the world are making the same money as ones at Bay Area?
You make it sound like they're curing cancer. What does GitHub really offer above and beyond the other providers?
As an example, their PR reviewing systems sucks balls. It chokes on larger PRs (250 files!? Really?). Also, with files which have been essentially replaced, the diff can become so large that GitHub won't even show it, and since you can only add comments on PRs, you're sunk. I have to resort to sending around emails with code lines and comments on them.
GitHub is amateur hour. Their half-assed implementations of almost every piece of their functionality reminds me of the same BS Apple does on iOS.
4. Each of you has 2. One for yourself and one for the collaborator. Which answers the question of why some people are unhappy with the change: it punishes organizations that collaborate a lot.
So yes, if you invite external contributors to a single repo (Say a consultant with clients). You will pay for each and every account you invite. Gitlab it is!
This will affect enterprises - but then they're either already on Github Enterprise or are used to per user pricing anyway. Google Apps, Slack etc all have (quantitavely similar) per user pricing. Google doesn't charge you based on the number of emails you send, nor does Slack charge based on the number of private rooms there are - that would be dumb.
The band of companies between small shops and enterprises are likely to be affected, but then this is really employee lunch money.
my organization currently contains 15 github users. 2 of which are used by error reporting tools to open bugs (Sentry, Crashlytics), one of which is used by Jenkins, 3 of which are outside contractor for which github now will get the money multiple times as companies move to the same billing method.
We had 9 repos on github (and about 20 smaller ones with less collaboration on a self-hoste gitolite installation), so we paid $300 per year.
Now I have unlimited repos of which I still only use 9, but now I pay $1300 per year, whereby 3 of these accounts I'm paying for aren't actually real people and another 3 of these accounts I'm paying for even though multiple other companies are also paying for them.
Aside of the nearly 5x increase in price, I think it's also unfair having to pay for practically unused bug-reporting-only accounts and having to pay for accounts that are already paid for by a multitude of other companies.
I don't think this is good pricing for me.
Also as this isn't just a moderate increase, but a whopping 5x increase, I also strongly consider moving back away to a self-hosted solution because increasing the price by 5x is breaking the trust put into github as a third-party provider.
Increasing the price a bit is fine. But 5x is excessive.
I'm glad there's at least a year that we can keep using the old plans.
I slo wonder if charging per user rather than per repo will also discourage the creation of open-source repos from orgs? There's no longer a (reduced) cost benefit after all, even if that was a minor influence compared with the other benefits of open-sourcing your code.
Has it really? Existing orgs aren't being forced to change, and on top of that they say they will give at least 12 months notice if they decide to force existing orgs into new pricing.
(If you were an organization with few private repositories and large number of users, Github was earlier more affordable.)
Now each user for the private repo has a significant cost (pretty significant for a non-profit community radio station); looks like we'll have to rethink this whole Github thing.
We do have discounts to support eligible non-profit organizations, and you can request the discount at https://github.com/nonprofit. Feel free to reach out to Support (https://github.com/c) if you have any further questions around this!
Installation is easy, upgrading (even between major versions) is completely painless, you get integration with Gitlab Continuous Integration, the Community Edition doesn't feel artificially gimped to get you to switch to a paid plan, Gitlab is great at fixing security issues. I also love the UX and it's not missing any feature in my experience compared to GitHub/Bitbucket.
I'm not affiliated with Gitlab in any way but it's honestly one of the rare pieces of software I only have praise for.
GitLab and BitBucket are going to eat GitHub's lunch if they don't change this crazy pricing model.
I always framed the "Github vs Bitbucket" as an "agile vs enterprise" mentality -- BitBucket made you think hard about adding new people, and air on the side of limiting access -- ie. conceal by default. That's perfect for enterprise, but the worst fucking incentive ever for an org that wants to make as many projects as possible accessible to all company members. GitHub (in times past), removed this cognitive burden of thinking "does this person /really/ need access....?" -- ie. transparent by default.
But now they've fucked up.
I was always in favour of avoiding self-hosting when there was a great hosted service like GitHub available. But I would now never advise any company that I cared about to use GitHub. It will contort and twist the openness you wish to imbue in your growing company
⇒ One-size-fits-all never fits all. Getting rid of tiers is naïve and misguided. Even if just for anchoring and the illusion of choice in face of terrible choices, tiers are a necessity. Sales will suffer, customer satisfaction will suffer.
⇒ I don't care if existing private customers pay the same or less. The price points should have been retained, and customers let to switch to a lower tier if they wished. Capturing consumer surplus leads to increased revenue. Github needs that money; the more money they throw away foolishly, the closer they are to bankruptcy.
⇒ "Starting today"?! At least current developer plans have been grandfathered in, with a 12-month notice period. Still, if an org has been in the process of planning a move to Github, they will have to re-evaluate.
Github has been such a great platform. A major stumble like this, I'm worried they may not be with us for much longer.
Other than that it sounds like a great improvement, it'll make it a lot more likely that I'll pay for GitHub when I'm not a student anymore.
/edit: https://github.com/pricing makes it sound like this is for free student plans as well
Confirmation here: https://www.facebook.com/GitHubEducation/posts/5987704836162...
To me, it looks like they're just "optimizing" their pricing, as I would guess that most large organizations using Github have significantly more users than repositories, especially with the recent trend towards "mono-repositories".
That said, SaaS pricing is really hard to get right from the beginning. I run a code analysis company (https://www.quantifiedcode.com) and we thought a lot about which kind of pricing would be the best for us and our users (we decided to use per-repo pricing). In the end, your pricing needs to support your business model, so it's normal to change it especially if you have a lot of data on how your users use your product.
I wonder though if this will drive organizations to other solutions like Gitlab or Bitbucket, as those are significantly cheaper and pretty easy to set up these days (and you get the extra benefit of a self-hosted solution that can be hosted in your own, secure infrastructure)
We have used the on premise community edition for about 3 years now. I first installed it when you had to run about a billion commands manually and it was great even then. Now you can install it with an apt-get and a few lines.
Lets not forget about the obvious negatives of Github (ignoring pricing).
1) Its hosted which means it can go down 2) It is closed source 3) Feature based is quite small (compared to Gitlab)
Gitlab is a regular release cycle, once a month which always comes with new features.
I personally think it is a no brainer.
One thing I also have to mention is a majority of for profit organizations have no problem paying for services they use. HN is a special snowflake on the internet, it's not a reliable source of market research by any means.
I can guarantee you none of the competitors are in it to provide a charity. They all want and NEED to make money somehow, I think you'll be surprised how long free solutions tend to last.
I really hope the old plans stay around as long as possible.
Also, consider external collaborators that are part of multiple organizations: Github will now receive the $9/month per external collaborator and organization they are in. That's one hell of a deal for github.
How does everyone else create credentials that CI can use to checkout code?
Gogs has mirror functionality where you could self-host access for those users in a fairly painless way. Screenshot of import screen: http://i.imgur.com/J4vWCIB.png
More on gogs here: https://github.com/gogits/gogs
(no association with gogs, just thought it might be helpful)
For bigger organizations, this is practically no money compared to other software they're using. So they'll just take the hit.
Sounds like the only customers being lost were those using github for no-commit users. Is that really a huge segment? If so they just need a special account status to fix this.
I think the question is why this took so long.
I would think this is a large segment, or at least Github would like it to be. Any software company that sells its software directly, and so has a sales team, a support team, marketing and so on will need to make all of those people users in Github if they're going to raise GH issues, see the code, prototype something for a client, help with branding, or anything else. If you're using Github the way they want you to (issue tracking, wiki, all of the things Github adds over vanilla Git that are "sticky"/hard to transfer to a competing service) you don't want to restrict access to just your developers. You want your whole company to be using it.
In any software company I've worked for, those non-developer users number 3-4x the actual number of developers. And I've never worked for a company that would consider restricting which users could raise issues with the product.
I agree that having a non-commit account status that didn't count toward the per-user pricing would fix this, for that particular (I think common?) case.
Seems bizarre to me. The "enterprise" market they're chasing are largely Atlassian customers already, and Bitbucket has a competitive edge there with its JIRA integration. GitHub's distinguishing characteristic was a different pricing model, that for some organizations makes more sense than Atlassian's does.
If they start competing apples-to-apples, but at 9x the cost, why would any enterprise use GitHub unless they have a hipster CIO/CTO who just thinks it's a "cooler" brand?
I know, I know "everyone is familiar with github". If your developers can't function without GitHub specifically, you have a bigger problem than the new GitHub pricing.
The 5 private repositories was a bit grating and making me considering a move elsewhere. I was going to have to consider changing how I stored/structured my projects in order to stay under what seemed to me to a relatively arbitrary limit, which interfered with some of my automated tools and how I'd set them up to assume a separate repository for each project.
I realise there are a number of bigger organisations for whom this realistically means a hike in prices, and I'm winning relative to their losing, but as someone who wants to keep advantages to the little guys (that's the genuinely little guys, not a bunch of 50-100 guys bankrolled by several SV millionaires/billionaires)...well, I feel its my duty to weigh in with positive feedback against what is probably going to be some negativity from the bigger guys...
When I ran out of them, I noticed that there's at least one that either does not need to be private anymore or just does not have to be on GitHub since I ditched that idea. It was a nice way for me to keep my GitHub profile nice and tidy.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this follows that model. They're open to feedback: https://github.com/contact
Here's the link for anyone else who wants to read: https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/218915077-Understan...
That itself makes deploys seem like a chore. And it's enough to make me come back to github for a mere $7.
GitHub vs BitBucket was always about :
1) 3rd party integrations ( CircleCI - e.g. ) - sadly bitbucket is behind that.
2) Issue management. Bitbucket's default behavior doesn't support labels or any other way of managing the issues structure.
Now, honestly CircleCI + GitHub for 7$ is just extremely cheap. ( talking solo devs / small teams ).
Not to mention, they should have made you pay only for users with commit rights!
AWS CodeCommit costs:
$1 per active user per month For every active user, your account receives for that month:
10 GB-month of storage
2,000 Git requests
And the 1 year free tier is:
5 active users 50 GB-month of storage 10,000 Git requests
Anyone who's using CodeCommit - have you hit the limits? How much did you go over by?
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/samer/archive/2010/01/27/quick-share...
One downside of this change is if you have a private Github org, you are now incentivized not to add advisors/randoms to your org/repos. I wonder how much scurrying Github sees to remove errant users from orgs.
Outside collaborators on public repositories of an organization are free. Only the ones invited to collaborate on private repositories are counted as paid users.
Hope this helps!
Although I can very much see how it could go the other way.
I am not sure why people would like stuff to be priced per repo. It is a fairly unintuitive model for me and is a huge problem when you need to go an explain to the finance team that you need to spend more because you "created more repos"... say wut? Spending per user is a very clean way of pricing.
If this is going to be enforced, we'll need to decide between cutting away users from the org or moving to a different platform.
I already pay $7 a month for my own personal Github account, and for me personally it's nice to have no limit.
But if we switch to the new model at work then not only am I paying my $7, but my company will have to pay an additional $9p/m for me to have access to the repos I use daily for work.
Even if they removed me from the organisation and added me as a collaborator this will be an additional cost.
They can spin it how they like but I suspect for a large number of organisations they are going to see quite an increase in cost from using Github.
Github had leaks coming out about how 'white men' aren't suitable to solve GH's business problems, why should I want to associate with an organization that discriminates people based on the color of their skin rather than by the contents of their code?
I'm glad that they are offering this, I think their customers will put this offering to good use, but it doesn't convince me.
Before upgrading, a grand total of 4 users had access to our private repositories, of which we were only using 7 out of 10. I was nervous about running out of repositories moreso than the cost of adding people.
(If we grow our team, it's because we have a lot of client work that's outside my immediate strong suits and we had to hire. If we do that twice, I'll gladly pay the extra $9/month.)
He made a mistake and checked in (yes this is on him) an AWS access and secret.
Within hours we have 1,500 machines launched in every region doing bitcoin mining....
Making a repo "public by default" is pure BS.
I use GH for my open source projects and code examples for my books and I use Bitbucket (which is also a great service) for my private repos. I have always felt somewhat guilty with this setup, working both companies for free services.
We have essentially 2 classes of GitHub user on our organisation - developers, and non-developers. While our devs use GitHub all the time (and therefore are worth the $25 a month for the development team), our other users might edit a specific few config files, or jobs pages (for example) once a month - paying $9/month each seems quite overpriced.
We want to be an open company, one that doesn't keep secrets from employees, one that doesn't create unnecessary barriers to productivity, or have unnecessary process, so giving GitHub access to everyone in the company who wants it is important to us - this stops us from reasonably doing this. As a result, we likely won't be switching to the new pricing structure for as long as possible, which is a shame, because it would be nice to not have to think about private repos.
But it's not about just the money, it's about incentives.
- We have large amounts of open-source code, so we were encouraged to open-source more to avoid jumping to the next tier.
- We're going to probably close access to a bunch of code to a big chunk of our organization. We have hundreds of humans. Whereas before we would give them permissions to view as a default and hope they look at our code one day or at least know that they can, or sometimes would get a link to look at a change from a discussion, we'll now have to have to see whether it's worth 9x100s of people every month.
I am not complaining, Github provides excellent service. Seems worth it at 5K$ a year and probably 10K$ a year, too. I wish it didn't just double though and was more gradual.
I've been using GitHub for a few years now to host private and public repos and paid private repos was always a point of contention. Now that they are unlimited, I can say that GitHub is definitely going to be the home to all of my future projects. I really feel like GitHub has been kicking it up a notch in 2016. Awesome work team and thanks!
The per user pricing is pretty reasonable but only when you think of seeders (publishers/editors/pushers call them as you like).
For instance I would love to subscribe to a BI cloud suite that really fit my need, but I'm basically the sole query editor and I have potentially 200 private readers + some public OpenData. I simply just can't come to my boss and ask that we subscribe to this service on a 200 users basis while only one users will really have the use of the license...
$9/user/month for one of the best and easy-to-use platforms to store and manage your repos and help your software development, which for most companies is extremely important to their product.
Slack is $8/user/month and yet people have no problem with that pricing. Git is also extremely portable and easy to move and takes minutes to self-host so what's the problem here?
And for those who have issues with the organizational changes, did you see?
> I am an existing organization customer and prefer the per-repository plans. Can I remain on my current plan?
> Yes, you can choose to continue paying based on the number of repositories you use. You can also upgrade or downgrade in the legacy repository structure based on the number of repositories you need.
There is no free plan but the pricing is fair in my opinion: https://www.assembla.com/plans
It might make sense however to not count collaborators with read-only access.
Of course, now that I have gitlab, there's very little reason for me to come back.
But don’t hate us too much GitHub. We still love you :)
GitLab was already looking good, if we're forced to change well likely move to GitLab. Github's pricing was already overly expensive for what you get, in my opinion.
I also had an organization a/c (only 1 user) at $9/month. I switched to the $25/month, so yes, its now costing me more.
I understand math. Why not just give me $5/user? :)
It's been hard to justify upgrading to an organization for awhile, since our work is hit or miss and we both have other jobs form time to time. We aren't much in terms of load on Github, but we'd like to be able to store 40-50 private repos or add more without worrying about our limit. The new organization pricing makes tons of sense for us since it's very close to the old 'medium' plan we were using, instead of being 2.5 times as much, which we never felt we could justify.
Bravo, GitHub.
If it is the case that I have to pay to have privacy on Github, then it imposes a privacy-rich versus privacy-poor dichotomy which I am uncomfortable with. Now I know as far as these things go (GH can be subject to National Security Letters), that GH is not really absolutely private. (Backdoors into people's 'secret' GISTS anyone?).
GH had an opportunity here to change their business model so that free users can avail of private repos, and GH could still manage to bring in revenue. GH primarily makes the bulk of their income from what I call 'stakeholder accounts'. That is; those companies who simply couldn't function correctly if GH didn't exist. It is in these stakeholders that there is a symbiotic relationship of revenue for GH, and value for the stakeholder(s).
There are very little lone private individuals who have that kind of symbiotic relationship, and so at least give these low income users the same equal rights of privacy as behemoth tech organizations. It makes sense.
In terms of how GH gets revenue from these users, there are countless other ways to do this instead of relying on the monolithic device of a premium subscription model. Offer paid licenses for their proprietary GH clients. (A one off payment of $20.00 for the GH Windows client is something I would actually pay money for)...
