> It seems the time has come for unicorns to justify their hefty valuations.

Sorry what? It seems the article author knows nothing about Github. Not a unicorn and only took investor money after being profitable for a long time.

Yes the cost is going up for many people. No, my company doesn't plan on moving anything off of Github. It's well worth the cost.

I mentioned this is another article on the subject but... I "upgraded" to the unlimited plan immediately and it saved me over $100 a month. For some people this pricing change is awful, for others like me it's great.

If it were to get more expensive I could probably use self-hosted GitLab however.

Try Gitlab, it's free and partly open source and much closer to Github's UI than Bitbucket.

The tone is inflammatory and that graph is a joke. Changes are a function of two factors whereas advisory focuses on only one dimension. With unique insight authors claim to have, I'd expect something more comprehensive.

That being said I'm pretty sure that some will be unhappy with the change. As andraz mentioned in another comment - moat gives leverage. But even though I'm pretty sure GitHub is fairly elastic in terms of pricing with large enough companies (with large enough probably still being not that large), I find it hard to believe that their bottom line suffers. This means that customers are picking up the tab and as silly as this article is, prices did go up and some people should migrate.

As usual, when moats are deep enough, prices raise. I think this is basic economics that governs all such businesses. Github feels they have entrenched themselves enough that they can increase prices by segmenting the market differently, which is probably true.

Naturally this opens up space for competition which will figure out how to take a bite here and there. But that will take quite some years.

Not moving to bitbucket and not upgrading at the moment.

It's time to try Gitlab