GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
72 points
15 hours ago
| 10 comments
| twitter.com
| HN
otterley
14 hours ago
[-]
This is the official message: https://x.com/github/status/2001372894882918548

"We’ve read your posts and heard your feedback.

"1. We’re postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions to take time to re-evaluate our approach.

"2. We are continuing to reduce hosted-runners prices by up to 39% on January 1, 2026.

"We have real costs in running the Actions control plane. We are also making investments into self-hosted runners so they work at scale in customer environments, particularly for complex enterprise scenarios. While this context matters, we missed the mark with this change by not including more of you in our planning.

"We need to improve GitHub Actions. We’re taking more time to meet and listen closely to developers, customers, and partners to start. We’ve also opened a discussion to collect more direct feedback and will use that feedback to inform the GitHub Actions roadmap. We’re working hard to earn your trust through consistent delivery across GitHub Actions and the entire platform."

reply
kevin061
15 hours ago
[-]
"Postponing" means they will just do it later.

The writing is on the wall. Up to you if you wish to continue using and trusting Microsoft.

reply
thomascountz
12 hours ago
[-]

   "Postponing" means they will just do it later.
For the record, planning to do something later than originally planned is the definition of "postpone." Nevertheless, coupling to any vendor is a form of technical debt, and it's always a good idea to take stock and evaluate if it's time to start repaying it.
reply
AndrewDucker
12 hours ago
[-]
It does not seem unreasonable that if the locally-run actions are using some GitHub resources (for logging, maintenance,etc) then there's a cost to that. What a reasonable charge is, is open to discussion.
reply
estimator7292
8 hours ago
[-]
It sure as hell isn't a per-minute cost
reply
jborean93
7 hours ago
[-]
per-minute is really just a way to express the cost in a human friendly name. Doing per-hour, per-second, per-day could all result in the same total value just at a different number. If anything per-minute is better than per-hour as you won't be charge for minutes you don't use.
reply
tom1337
1 hour ago
[-]
But why not make it "per GB Logs ingested" or "per triggered job" (or both)? These should reflect the points where GitHub also has costs - but not per minute.
reply
whateveracct
6 hours ago
[-]
the issue is it's per-$DURATION

it could be per-workflow, regardless of duration

reply
ZeWaka
14 hours ago
[-]
Probably caused by enterprises going after them, my normally dead company-wide global devops chat had a few hundred messages yesterday because of this.
reply
Shadowmist
9 hours ago
[-]
Oh good I have a little bit more time to migrate away.
reply
gherkinnn
11 hours ago
[-]
Unrelated to Actions. Jared Palmer, the author of this Tweet, has done well for himself. I remember him as the author of Turborepo which Vercel gobbled up a few years ago.

https://jaredpalmer.com/about

reply
IshKebab
12 hours ago
[-]
> Although we gave away 11.5 billion build minutes (~$184 million) to support OSS last year

Interesting, I was trying to estimate how much they spent on free actions per year. I thought it would be around $100m. This is the first actual number I've seen.

I expect the $184 million figure is the sale price rather than the actual cost to GitHub, and given that competitors offer the same service for 3-10x less it's probably more like $80m overall I'd guess.

Still a pretty huge amount of money that I don't think any competitors can really hope to match.

reply
blibble
11 hours ago
[-]
I wonder how much of that $80 million is garbage code like safe_sleep.sh
reply
ChrisArchitect
14 hours ago
[-]
Maybe update link to the post:

Updates to GitHub Actions pricing https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/182186

reply
baggachipz
14 hours ago
[-]
Yeah, could we please stop treating twitter as the canonical source of company communications? There is always a blog post or in this case, a github discussion.
reply
everfrustrated
13 hours ago
[-]
That update is from an anonymous "Admin". The X link is directly from the (presumed?) head of GitHub.
reply
ChrisArchitect
13 hours ago
[-]
They've also updated the original resource page but a new url serves our purposes better https://resources.github.com/actions/2026-pricing-changes-fo...
reply
ChrisArchitect
3 hours ago
[-]
Related:

initial development and reactions:

Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46291156

reply
j45
8 hours ago
[-]
Hm, still too late, and still leaving.

Maybe I don't understand something, but self-hosted GitHub Actions cost more resources than GitHub Actions hosted with them?

There might be some creative uses of GitHub Actions, it seemed that getting users into the platform was valuable.

reply