It's amazing that your comment got thumbed down, not up. All points seem perfecly valid, so it really must be the "Apple customer" reference that killed it. Sad.

What's sad is the absurd claim that Apple customers believe that getting more for the same price is a bad thing. As for the next point, whether providing alternative DVCS access leads to greater fixed infrastructure costs or not, that seems like a completely orthogonal point to the "race to the bottom" topic that the OP raised. If all players involved reduce their prices (and therefore top-line revenue) to near zero, it doesn't matter how low the infrastructure costs are -- everyone is still broke in that scenario. So no, not all points here seem valid. Far from it: by my count, it looks like 0 for 2 so far.

One point, however, rings true: competition is good for we end-users, and it's certainly exciting that Bitbucket now offers both hg and git access.

Why would you claim that someone reduced their prices and revenue to zero? How does providing additional functionality relate to price reduction? I'm really surprised by this comment - do you have any data to base this assumption?

To me it's opening to customers with different demands.

Yes, I am an Apple customer, though really don't think that has anything to do with it.

My opinion stems from running my own SaaS applications, seen the business downsides of all the free stuff, and now don't focus very much on the free aspect. I prefer trial.

I also recognize that me paying for a service I like is a healthy way to help that service stay around, because that is how I view it when my customers are paying me.