Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 594 posts

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#101

Post by [deleted] »

cperciva wrote: post #63
drchiu wrote: post #19

I can't find the blog post, but some blog wrote a while ago why VCs invest in companies like Github. TL;DR -- basically it provides infrastructure for other startups. The business itself may not be a great business due to the amount of cost it takes to run it -- but it's necessary for the running of other ventures. Sort of like highways and non-toll bridges.

Are you saying that VCs are investing because they see companies like GitHub as being public goods? That's contrary to normal investing principles, unless there's some reason to think that a VC investing will result in their portfolio companies having superior access.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#102

Post by josho »

This is an example of how VCs distort the market for other businesses.

I had a recent conversation with a prospect and they took issue with the price of our software. Our app is in a specialized industry (ie. a smaller market). We charge a per use fee of $35. This fee enables our customer to immediately earn nearly $200 (a 5x return with no risk to them). Despite the significant benefit and profitability of using the app the prospect took issue with our price and referred to the cost of other apps.

It was that conversation that made me realize how we've become accustomed to the quality and price of software that's been heavily subsidized by massive VC investments.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#103

Post by adrr »

Analemma_ wrote: post #52
mmastrac wrote: post #3

The thought of losing Github to the startup graveyard is kind of scary. It was bad enough to lose Google Code and when SourceForge had their "great purge" of inactive projects.

If they can't stand on their own feet, I imagine somebody would/will buy GitHub at a firesale rather than see it disappear completely. For all their missteps, they have developer mindshare that is the envy of everyone. If we're lucky it would be someone like Google or Microsoft, if we're unlucky it might be Oracle or SalesForce. Whoever it would end up being though, GitHub won't just vanish.

I figured MSFT was going to buy them and have it integrate nicely with Azure. They could do hosted enterprise github's natively on azure and would outclass code commit on AWS. Instead they bought linkedin which doesn't make sense to me.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#104

Post by notahacker »

drchiu wrote: post #19

I can't find the blog post, but some blog wrote a while ago why VCs invest in companies like Github. TL;DR -- basically it provides infrastructure for other startups. The business itself may not be a great business due to the amount of cost it takes to run it -- but it's necessary for the running of other ventures. Sort of like highways and non-toll bridges.

Sounds a little unlikely tbh. A VC fund exists to invest in a small portfolio of ventures to maximise returns over a fixed period to the Limited Partners who have invested in that particular fund. The Limited Partners aren't donating their money to help the wider ecosystem, and if they suspect the VC firm is investing in businesses without massive profit potential because they might assist the growth of startups in their other VC funds, it's lawyer time.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#105

Post by BurningFrog »

niftich wrote: post #26
sergiotapia wrote: post #14

>The new digs gave employees a reason to come into the office. Visitors would enter a lobby modeled after the White House’s Oval Office before making their way to a replica of the Situation Room. The company also erected a statue of its mascot, a cartoon octopus-cat creature known as the Octocat. The 55,000-square-foot space is filled with wooden tables and modern art. The Sillicon Valley episodes write themselves it…

I'm hesitant to call this, and their hotel retreats and jet-setting travel 'opulence' out of a sense of decency, but... I guess I'm just a lot more frugal, and mostly isolated from this culture.

I don't begrudge anyone all the opulence they can afford.

But when they can't afford it, my eyes start rolling pretty hard.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#106

Post by laxatives »

sergiotapia wrote: post #14

>The new digs gave employees a reason to come into the office. Visitors would enter a lobby modeled after the White House’s Oval Office before making their way to a replica of the Situation Room. The company also erected a statue of its mascot, a cartoon octopus-cat creature known as the Octocat. The 55,000-square-foot space is filled with wooden tables and modern art. The Sillicon Valley episodes write themselves it…

There's an article about the writers hearing anecdotes they had to tone down for TV because it was too unbelievable or ridiculous. One that stands out was an angry exec storming out of a meeting on rollerblades, not being able to angrily slam the door without falling.

edit: whoops, businessinsider is shit. Here's the original article: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/how-silicon-va...

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#107

Post by rajathagasthya »

ocschwar wrote: post #80
Analemma_ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can't stand on their own feet, I imagine somebody would/will buy GitHub at a firesale rather than see it disappear completely. For all their missteps, they have developer mindshare that is the envy of everyone. If we're lucky it would be someone like Google or Microsoft, if we're unlucky it might be Oracle or SalesForce. Whoever it would end up being though, GitHub won't just vanish.

I appreciate how GitHub's software platform makes migration elsewhere much easier, making me less leveraged by GitHub the company. That, ironically, makes me REALLY not want them to go under: they don't deserve to.

Isn't the migration easier because it's just a git repo? I'm curious how GitHub's software platform specifically facilitates easy migration.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#108

Post by sqeaky »

dsacco wrote: post #87
drchiu wrote: post #19

I can't find the blog post, but some blog wrote a while ago why VCs invest in companies like Github. TL;DR -- basically it provides infrastructure for other startups. The business itself may not be a great business due to the amount of cost it takes to run it -- but it's necessary for the running of other ventures. Sort of like highways and non-toll bridges.

In other words, "commoditizing the complements." As GitHub makes certain parts of the software industry significantly more accessible or cheaper, its complements will succeed commensurately. For example, easy access to, and encouraged proliferation of, skilled talent and robust open source (free) software. That GitHub provides infrastructure for other startups makes sense, but I'd strongly push back on the idea that…

I think I am missing the subtle distinction you are trying to make. It seems like you have real point, but I don't understand; could you expand on it?

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#109

Post by jimmywanger »

joeax wrote: post #54

The takeaways from the article: (1) They went on a hiring spree in 2015-16, dramatically increasing their costs before their revenue was able to keep up. Something to keep an eye on in 2017. (2) Half the team is remote! Kudos to them for making this work.

> Half the team is remote! Kudos to them for making this work.

FWIW, I believe they're retrenching heavily on this. I remember reading articles about how they're trying to centralize management, and if you look at their jobs page (https://github.com/about/jobs#positions) most of their eng positions are SF only, at least the three or so I looked at. Only their support positions seem to be remote.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#110

Post by noobermin »

joeax wrote: post #54

The takeaways from the article: (1) They went on a hiring spree in 2015-16, dramatically increasing their costs before their revenue was able to keep up. Something to keep an eye on in 2017. (2) Half the team is remote! Kudos to them for making this work.

>Half the team is remote! Kudos to them for making this work.

Are you being sarcastic (esp, in light of your point 1) )?

Out of curiosity from someone not in the know, would remote employees cost more or less than ones made to come in every morning?

Post reply on HN