1. Announce price increase generating bad publicity.

2. Kill bad publicity with blog pretending to be understanding and taking on feedback while "pausing" the increase.

3. Implement price increase a few months later when the bad publicity wave is over, and its old news so wont generate new headlines.

▲

Uehreka 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nah, that doesn’t work when the substance of the change is this intense and has an actual effect on peoples’ bottom lines. If they wait a few months and try again, people will see their bills go up immediately and they’ll all get mad again. I don’t know what GH will do next, but if they try to do that, it will definitely backfire.

	▲	beaker52 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You might be surprised at how much you’re willing to surrender if someone gave you some time to come to terms with it. It’s just a question of giving you enough time to move on from anger/shock/fear to toward acceptance. It’s like magic and is used all the time. > Nah, that doesn’t work when… Sounds like it could be another well known stage of the process called denial. Denial is when you tell yourself that something isn’t possible which makes you feel safer, when in fact you’re already moving toward acceptance - acceptance that you’re going to leave, or pay the price.
	▲	lbreakjai 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		When they eventually roll it out (And they will, they always do), everyone will have had plenty of time to run the numbers and either come up with a plan, or just swallow the pill. If you still complain in a few months then that's on you, because you've been warned.
	▲	dijit 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		A lot of evidence that this is not the case. It happens a lot, Atlassian being a really prominent example with their “SaaS only” change.
	▲	Vespasian 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		sounds like it's time to increase their vendor lock in then an make sure they are not as compatible with other solutions. I fear this would be the obvious conclusion.

▲

csomar 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. There is real serious money involved here. Usually, the people who self-host are maxing their runners (otherwise it makes more sense to use minute billing). So this will affect them by roughly doubling their servers cost. Think if some company had a $15K/month bill in self-runners, they'll now also get a $15k/month additional bill from GitHub.

Many people will switch for that kind of money.

	▲	withinboredom 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		We use dedicated machines for our runners. Each machine has like 16+ cpus, 64gb+ of ram. Costs are <2k per month. This pricing change would have cost more than the servers we're running on.

▲

linuxftw 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is my take as well.

Personally, I think this is all overblown anyway. Their pricing seems fair to me. Too many people are used to getting something for nothing. Most companies will just pay the new prices, because the time to develop and setup an alternative will far exceed just paying the new fees to GH (when you account for engineering cost).

▲

redrove 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds like Chat Control.

▲

djeastm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If this is the case then they don't really understand developers at all. We'll complain in a few months just as much as we do now.

	▲	estimator7292 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		They have not shown any hints that they understand developers since Ballmer