story
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.
Also, more users = more problems.
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$450 cost. So if you need 126 repos you pay more than twice as much for that extra 1 repo. That makes little sense to me.
Recognizing the repository steps are a pain for customers and not moving towards a pricing per _single_ repository, say between 1$ 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.
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!
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.
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?
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 work in a small agency, and our GitHub bill will go down as a result of these changes.
