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

281–290 of 594 posts

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

#281

Post by justinclift »

moritzplassnig wrote: post #265
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.

GitHub is a $100M ARR revenue company that is probably (2 VC rounds where they had a lot of leverage) still controlled by the founders. They are in a healthy state right now, regardless of the high burn compared to most VC-backed companies. They certainly made a lot of mistakes, had changes in the leadership team and are successful despite that not because of it, but I don't see them dying anytime soon. $60M burn ove…

> I'm more surprised why Bloomberg makes such a big deal out of it.

They're probably sounding alarmist to try maximising attention. :/

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

#282

Post by jlarocco »

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 agree somebody will buy them before they disappear, but I strongly disagree on the purchasers.

I'll take Oracle, SalesForce, or Microsoft over Google any day of the week. The worst Oracle will do is start charging me more, but god only knows what kind of sleazy ad tracking Google will add. No thank you, I'll move everything over to BitBucket.

Fortunately, I don't think Google will bother. They already shutdown Google Code when they couldn't use it to increase ad revenue, so hopefully they'll leave GitHub alone.

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

#283

Post by nikcub »

Interesting that 600 employees sounds like a lot, but it works out that revenue/employee p.a is $230k+ - which is above average for enterprise SaaS[0] - and you have the 25%+ annual growth on that

That said, they should be doing better margin-wise since they would have relatively lower customer acquisition costs compared to the market since they have so much developer recognition.

[0] http://tomtunguz.com/revenue-per-employee-trends/

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

#284

Post by nine_k »

golergka wrote: post #223
ForHackernews wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of several reasons why the GPL is a great license for FLOSS. You can GPL-license your software and contribute to the community, while offering alternative commercial licenses to companies that want them. If you use a totally-permissive BSD-style license, you're stuck trying to charge for a support contract or custom plugins or something.

What's stopping other companies from using your GPL software in their proprietary stuff without telling anyone? Not every company out there is a startup who needs to be sparkling clean to pass due diligence for the next round, acquisition or IPO. A lot of companies out there are perfectly fine with a little bit of cheating here and there — I would actually say that most of them are. Especially when you remember about…

It gives you a future market share via so many people using your software for free. They won't pay if it weren't free anyway, but would use a competing piece of software. That is, without the free (as in freedom) version, few would even consider paying for a commercial license.

Did you ever think why Microsoft is so lazy about enforcing the end-user Windows licenses on non-business customers? Maybe they want kids get used to to running Windows at home, and expect it in a work environment, and value this higher than the lost revenue from "pirates"?

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

#285

Post by __derek__ »

martindale wrote: post #275
josho wrote: post #102

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…

> a 5x return with no risk to them There's something strange going on here. What software do you produce?

I had the same thought. That line sounds eerily like a Ponzi scheme.

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

#286

Post by moritzplassnig »

justinclift wrote: post #281
moritzplassnig wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub is a $100M ARR revenue company that is probably (2 VC rounds where they had a lot of leverage) still controlled by the founders. They are in a healthy state right now, regardless of the high burn compared to most VC-backed companies. They certainly made a lot of mistakes, had changes in the leadership team and are successful despite that not because of it, but I don't see them dying anytime soon. $60M burn ove…

> I'm more surprised why Bloomberg makes such a big deal out of it. They're probably sounding alarmist to try maximising attention. :/

Could be or they probably don't know the details of GitHub's business, product, etc. If you aren't an engineer, writing for Bloomberg and getting the financials of a hyped startup like GitHub, that article is the outcome in most of the cases. Imagine them writing about Docker - I doubt it would be different.

Which is a bummer. I wish there would be somebody more closely analyzing the industry. There's so much going on and I believe that surfacing more of that to the broader community would be beneficial for all of us and result in stronger companies. I think nobody wants to see GitHub going out of Business. We need health competition (as consumers of their products). That GitLab forced pressure on them to improve the product is awesome. I wish Bloomberg would have put more focus on the cultural/leadership issues because a more diverse/inclusive GitHub, again, is better for all of us.

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

#287

Post by sumedh »

inthewoods wrote: post #237
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.

Or is it - to me Github is just another example of the developer tools market cycle. Reminds me a bit of the image hosting market - image hosting company is created and gains momentum, then has to monetize, so they add advertising and people start to drift away when someone else then creates the next image hosting site. In the developer space, it seems pretty much the same. SourceForge was good/cool until it wasn't,…

> when someone else then creates the next image hosting site.

If I am not mistaken Imgur is doing quite well for many years now.

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

#288

Post by dotnetisnotdead »

bato wrote: post #277
dotnetisnotdead wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This new mindset is dangerous and self defeating by nature. By hiring someone less qualified because they're a minority or woman just makes others resent them. Especially those who are minorities and/or women and they ARE qualified and have worked to get where they are (source: I'm talking about myself here). Why did we work so hard to become great at our jobs to just have someone else less qualified plopped in next…

Nice of you to assume that women and minorities are less qualified. Especially in light of the numerous studies that show that people (men AND women) keep assuming on your technical skills solely based on genders.

You completely missed my point. Drastically.

I never said they (we) are less qualified, I was referring to the action of hiring a less qualified person based on the fact that they are a minority or a woman. When this happens, it angers EVERY more qualified person in the position. I'll break it down.

Candidate A is a white male with all qualifications. Candidate B is a black woman with far less, but is more "diverse".

When candidate B is hired, the others in the organization soon figure out they are less skilled or qualified. Then the white males in the marketplace have resentment towards them, BUT so does the black woman with great skills and qualifications who saw someone with less qualifications hired beside them, making the same wage as them.

Does that make sense?

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

#289

Post by moritzplassnig »

Netcob wrote: post #38
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.

...aaand no more OSS! Only half-kidding. So many big and small projects are using GitHub as their primary repository and sometimes their only homepage. And there's all those benefits of it being something of a social network as well, and an issue tracker and so on. I'm sure something else would take its place, but it would take a while before it gets as much momentum.

I wonder how much of a social network it really is. What's the value you get out of other people having their OSS projects on GitHub? Yes, it's all on one site/domain but if Google Search is your entry point, does it matter if the OSS code lives on Bitbucket, GitHub or GitLab?

4 years ago I thought that my GitHub account will get more important, the identity will matter but is that really the case? I don't see the typical network effects and behavior of a social network.

I think all there's is the perception of GitHub being the default choice. That's powerful but far less powerful than truly increased value for me as an user because of the size of the network, you being an user too (eg. Twitter or Uber).

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

#290

Post by dotnetisnotdead »

bato wrote: post #277
dotnetisnotdead wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This new mindset is dangerous and self defeating by nature. By hiring someone less qualified because they're a minority or woman just makes others resent them. Especially those who are minorities and/or women and they ARE qualified and have worked to get where they are (source: I'm talking about myself here). Why did we work so hard to become great at our jobs to just have someone else less qualified plopped in next…

Nice of you to assume that women and minorities are less qualified. Especially in light of the numerous studies that show that people (men AND women) keep assuming on your technical skills solely based on genders.

and for a point of reference, I am a mixed race female engineer. So don't assume I'm some "white male bigot" boogeyman and address the facts of the point I'm presenting here.
Post reply on HN