GitHub Copilot is now available for free

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

GitHub has introduced a free tier of Copilot in VS Code, offering limited monthly code completions and chat, which many see as a classic funnel to paid plans and a way to strengthen Microsoft’s position in the AI tooling market. Developers compare Copilot unfavorably to newer tools like Cursor, Windsurf, Codeium, and local setups using Ollama or Continue, especially around multi-file edits, smarter inline changes, and model choice. Alongside workflow and productivity praise, there is strong concern about code quality, long‑term dependency on proprietary AI, and the use of private code for training, as well as unease about Microsoft’s broader competitive tactics and data policies.

Free Tier Details & Usage Limits

  • New free GitHub Copilot tier in VS Code includes ~2,000 completions and 50 chat requests per month.
  • Many full‑time developers consider this far too low (“a few days” or “one day” of use); hobbyists or occasional coders may find it sufficient.
  • Several see it as “shareware” or a funnel to upsell Pro, not a truly free professional tool.
  • Some developers plan to downgrade/cancel paid plans but keep using the free quota opportunistically.

Copilot vs Cursor, Windsurf, Codeium & Others

  • Numerous users say they switched from Copilot to Cursor or Windsurf and find those significantly better, especially for:
    • Multi‑file edits and patch application.
    • Inline multi‑line edits and “edit around cursor” behavior.
    • Faster, more relevant autocomplete.
  • Others argue Copilot Edits and chat+edits are improving and closing the gap but still feel clunky or unreliable for large refactors.
  • Some feel Copilot remains “glorified autocomplete” compared to more agentic tools.
  • A minority report opposite experiences: local tools or alternatives like Continue felt worse than Copilot for them.

IDE Ecosystem & Workflow

  • Strong divide between:
    • VS Code / Cursor / Windsurf users, who praise rapid AI integration and multi‑file agents.
    • JetBrains users, who value superior navigation, refactoring, debugging, and tooling, and bolt on AI via Copilot, Cody, CodeGPT, etc.
  • Several keep two tools open: one “real IDE” (JetBrains, Visual Studio) plus an AI‑centric editor (Cursor/Windsurf/Zed).
  • Vim/Neovim users rely on plugins (copilot.vim, CopilotChat, Continue, CodeCompanion) but feel still behind Cursor‑style experiences.

Privacy, Training, and Licensing Concerns

  • Many worry Copilot free tier is partly about harvesting more proprietary code for training.
  • Settings default to allowing use of editor code snippets for “product improvements”; some are uneasy even with opt‑out, citing policy changes and vague language.
  • Strong objections to:
    • Training on public code without explicit consent.
    • Terms that forbid using Copilot outputs to train competing AI systems.
  • Some developers have left GitHub entirely or moved to “no AI” forges and self‑hosting.

Local & Open Models

  • Active interest in local or BYO‑API setups: Continue + Ollama, Tabby, Cody+Ollama, Qwen2.5‑Coder, StarCoder, Llama, Gemma, etc.
  • Debate over tradeoffs:
    • Local models: more control and privacy, but slower, require hardware, often weaker than state‑of‑the‑art cloud models.
    • Cloud SOTA (Claude, GPT‑4/4o, Sonnet): better quality and large‑scale edits, but proprietary and metered.

Impact on Work, Quality, and Jobs

  • Some report huge productivity gains (rapid test generation, boilerplate, sweeping UI or config changes).
  • Others find AI‑heavy codebases chaotic: inconsistent style, duplicated patterns, subtle bugs, and dependence on agents for any nontrivial change.
  • Broader skepticism: AI may accelerate sloppier software, erode skills, displace workers, and concentrate power and knowledge inside a few vendors.

Market & Strategy Views

  • Several see Microsoft’s move as classic “embrace, extend, extinguish”: bundling Copilot with GitHub/VS Code to starve startups.
  • Others predict eventual price hikes once dominance is secured.
  • Some believe AI tooling is overhyped, unprofitable at current costs, and may see a correction when returns and maintenance burdens become clearer.