I'm not sure, Bitbucket's price effectively is $1/user and Github's $9/user. I wouldn't expect organisations to move to Bitbucket either, as change is generally costly in terms of man-hour, but current price structure makes Bitbucket eight-fold cheaper.

Not really, I personnaly see no point of moving our (dozens of) repos to github at the moment. It would cost us a lot more than $0, for no advantage that justifies paying a premium. I am not sure what you mean by ecosystem, but we don't really miss anything from github. Yes the UI is more polished but who cares when 99% of the interactions with the repos are done with git clients (in various flavors).

Why? BitBucket is superior in every respect, plus importantly they give free private repos for every user. No price gouging like we're seeing with GitHub.

Oh, come on. It's OK to dislike this change, but "BitBucket is superior in every respect" and "price gouging" are far from objectively obvious.

Well look at the price changes people posting here are facing, ones from $2k a year to $8k, that's gouging!

These people are outliers --- the average developer with a handful of repos is probably going to save money with the new pricing.

BitBucket has branch level permission, but in Github its cryptic.

BitBucket is okay, but not superior in any way.

It's cheaper and has private repos for free and that's it.

The UI is clunky and the community is much smaller than Githubs.

I also don't understand why they try to sell it with the Jira integration as if it was a good thing. The only people I heard saying good things about Jira and this marketplace where working on companies that sold stuff there.

It's not really price gouging. GitHub's product is GitHub. Atlassian's product is Jira, which nets them a tidy penny, and BitBucket is their loss-leader value-add that they can use to undercut GitHub.