Why The Price Model of Github Copilot Will Not Change Anytime Soon #198062
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉 Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users. Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩
Where to look to see what's shipping 👀
What you can do in the meantime 💻
As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities. Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
🏷️ Discussion Type
Product Feedback
💬 Feature/Topic Area
Copilot in GitHub
Body
For anyone still clinging to the hope that GitHub Copilot will magically adjust its pricing — spoiler alert: they can’t. The laws of basic economics won’t let them.
Copilot lives entirely on Microsoft Azure, running fine‑tuned models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. When it launched, Microsoft bet that 90% of casual users would happily subsidize the 10% of hardcore coders. Pricing was set accordingly. Then came multi‑file workspace agents, and suddenly everyone was a power user. Result? 4.7 million subscribers dragging the platform straight into deficit.
The Wall Street Journal already spilled the beans: Microsoft was losing about $20 per user per month. On a $10 plan, the real cost was $30. For heavy users, losses ballooned to $80 each. Multiply that across millions of seats, and you’re staring at a baseline deficit north of $60 million per month. That’s before anyone even mentions Anthropic or OpenAI’s price hikes.
The deeper issue? Big Tech’s brute‑force philosophy: throw more GPUs, more electricity, more capital at the problem, and hope the software catches up. Spoiler again: it didn’t. Infrastructure costs exploded because optimisation was treated like an afterthought.
Meanwhile, DeepSeek took the opposite route — radical software‑hardware co‑design.
The result: operating costs at a fraction of Western frontier models.
Yes, Western labs will scramble to optimise over the next 12–18 months. But retraining GPT‑5 from scratch costs half a billion to a billion dollars and takes most of a year. Pausing the arms race to re‑engineer for efficiency? That’s not happening. Expect speculative decoding, flash‑RAG caching, and silicon co‑design to bypass Nvidia instead.
Even if OpenAI and Anthropic shave costs, the million‑dollar question remains: will those savings ever trickle down to end users?
So if you’re waiting for GitHub Copilot to slash prices anytime soon — dream on. Unless they resurrect subsidisation, the hamster wheel keeps spinning.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions