GitHub Copilot introduces new limits, charges for ‘premium’ AI models

Tech Crunch - Apr 4th, 2025

GitHub Copilot, the AI coding assistant owned by Microsoft, is introducing a new pricing structure that may increase costs for users who utilize advanced AI models. Starting in May, subscribers will face 'premium requests,' which impose rate limits for actions using models beyond the base model, OpenAI's GPT-4o. The new pricing affects Copilot Pro, Business, and Enterprise users, who will receive a limited number of monthly premium requests. Additional requests can be purchased, or users can upgrade to the new Copilot Pro+ plan at a higher monthly fee. This change reflects the increased computing costs of advanced models like Anthropic's 3.7 Sonnet, which offer more reliable results but require more resources.

The implications of this pricing update are significant for developers relying on GitHub Copilot's advanced features. By introducing these changes, GitHub acknowledges the balance between offering cutting-edge AI capabilities and managing operational expenses. Despite the increased costs, Copilot remains a profitable venture for Microsoft, contributing significantly to GitHub's revenue growth. This development comes as AI coding platforms are reevaluating their pricing structures, as seen with Devin's recent rate increase. As the demand for advanced AI models grows, GitHub's strategy highlights the challenges in delivering powerful AI tools while maintaining financial sustainability.

Microsoft Git Hub Copilot Ai Coding Pricing Changes Open Ai Gpt 4o Anthropic 3.7 Sonnet Copilot Pro+

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article effectively communicates the recent changes to GitHub Copilot's pricing and features, providing important information for current and potential users. It is timely and clear, with a logical structure that aids comprehension. However, the accuracy is slightly compromised by a pricing error, and the lack of direct citations or diverse perspectives limits its overall balance and source quality. While the article addresses a topic of interest to the tech community, its impact and engagement potential are somewhat limited by the absence of broader context or interactive elements. Enhancing transparency and including more varied viewpoints could improve the article's overall quality.

Accuracy

The article provides a generally accurate overview of the changes to GitHub Copilot's pricing and features. However, there is a discrepancy regarding the price of the Copilot Pro plan, which the article states as $20 per month, while GitHub documentation lists it at $10 per month. This significant error affects the article's accuracy score. Additionally, the claim about the introduction of "premium requests" is accurate, but it needs verification against official GitHub announcements to ensure that all specifics, such as the number of requests and the pricing of additional requests, are correctly reported. The article mentions the impact on GitHub's revenue, which aligns with statements from Microsoft, but it would benefit from direct citation or links to these statements for better verifiability.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the business implications of GitHub Copilot's pricing changes, with an emphasis on how it might affect users financially. However, it lacks a broader perspective that considers the potential benefits of the new pricing model, such as access to more advanced AI models. The piece could be more balanced by including user testimonials or expert opinions on the impact of these changes, both positive and negative. The absence of alternative viewpoints or a discussion of how these changes might benefit users limits the article's balance.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey the changes to GitHub Copilot's pricing model. It logically presents the information, starting with the announcement of the changes, followed by details about the pricing tiers and premium requests. The tone is neutral and professional, making the content accessible to readers with a basic understanding of the topic. However, the inclusion of more detailed explanations or examples of what "agentic" coding entails could enhance comprehension for readers unfamiliar with technical jargon.

Source quality

The article does not explicitly cite sources or provide links to GitHub's official announcements or blog posts, which are crucial for verifying the claims made. While it references GitHub and Microsoft, the lack of direct quotes or citations from these entities diminishes the reliability and credibility of the information. The article would benefit from including authoritative sources or direct statements from GitHub representatives to enhance its source quality.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the changes to GitHub Copilot's pricing and the introduction of premium requests, but it lacks transparency regarding the methodology used to gather this information. There is no disclosure of how the information was obtained or whether there are any potential conflicts of interest. Including such details would improve transparency and help readers understand the basis for the article's claims. Additionally, the article could benefit from clarifying the impact of these changes on different user tiers.