[Arcuru]

> We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners.

Charging for self-hosted runners is an interesting choice. That's the same cost as their smallest hosted runners [1]

[1] - https://docs.github.com/en/billing/reference/actions-runner-...

[sylens]

Pushing you towards their hosted runners which will show up in their Azure usage numbers and drive the stock price

[NewJazz]

Ah yes, vertical integration and oligopoly.

Really Dianne?

[IshKebab]

It's because there are easy-to-use third party runners that cost around 3-10x less than the GitHub ones. This is aimed squarely at them.

https://github.com/neysofu/awesome-github-actions-runners

[jononor]

Starting an external CI company for GitHub is becoming more interesting now. Gitlab offers ability to do CI for external repositories. Travis CI was what everyone used before Github Actions. Time for a new Travis?

[thewisenerd]

it'd be great if they can couple this with an SLA for GitHub actions so we won't have to end up paying as much..

(ofc, that'd only mean they stop updating the status page, so eh)

[teach]

For what it's worth, they already fail to update the status page. We had an "outage" just this morning where jobs were waiting 10+ minutes for an available runner -- resolved after half an hour or so but nothing was ever posted

https://downdetector.com/status/github/

[tom1337]

Yep - Bitbucket made a similar move recently and I guess they are just following along. I'd love to get the justification of that fee tho…

Edit: Confused GitLab and Bitbucket

[swatcoder]

> justification of that fee

ZIRP ended, its remaining monopoly money has been burnt through, and the projected economy is looking bleak. We're now in the phase where everything that can be monetized is being monetized in every way that can be managed.

Free tiers evaporate. Fees appear everywhere. Ads appear everywhere, even where it was implied they wouldn't. The lemons must be squeezed.

And because everybody of relevance is in that mode, there's little competitive pressure to provide a specific rationale for a specific scheme. For the next few years, that's all the justification that there needs to be.

[wiether]

Your edit made your post confusing for us now...

I thought that "Bitbucket" was in your original post and you added only your edit message to say that it was, in fact, Gitlab and not Bitbucket that added cost for self-hosted runners.

[gheltlkckfn]

Actually, Atlassian is just getting rid of their on-prem hosted software all together. It’s not a product they will offer any longer.

[nstart]

I initially felt a bit offended when I saw this. Then I thought about it and at the end of the day there's a decent amount of infrastructure that goes into displaying the build information, updating it, scanning for secrets and redacting, etc.

I don't know if it's worth the amount they are targeting, but it's definitely not zero either.

[jeduardo]

That's a surprise, do you have a link to their announcement?

[gheltlkckfn]

Rugpull 101. It’s how you make money in the current economy.

[efreak]

It also seems odd that there's no discussion of using webhooks to replace the self-hosted runners for free, given that it would basically be working the same way. The only difference is who commits get attributed to, and where you go for logs and artifacts (these can probably ride along draft/prereleases or something)

[John23832]

enshittification