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

291–300 of 594 posts

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

#291

Post by pryelluw »

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…

You need two more price options. One for a little less and one for significantly more. Say $29, $35, and $99. Remove / add something to the other prices. People just want options. Give them some.

Oh, and provide a 10% discount of they buy the $99 version NOW. Offer ends soon. ;)

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

#292

Post by jessaustin »

abfan1127 wrote: post #199
cpeterso wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you're charging too little ? Price is a signal of product value. The customer might be wary of getting an immediate 5x return on their $35 investment, thinking there is some trick in the value proposition. If your price matched their immediate return ($200?) then they might be more receptive because the value equation is balanced.

or the cheapsters won't even call...

Ideally one could segment the market to charge one type of customer $35 and another type $200.

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

#293

Post by bswinnerton »

cyphar wrote: post #176

I'm surprised that they actually have a recreation of the oval office in their office . How arrogant and self-important do you have to be to honestly believe that such a parody is in any way justified? No, GitHub, you're not in charge of the free software world. You were just the first decent choice for code hosting. GitLab is eating your lunch and you're pretending that it's not happening.

The oval office isn't around anymore.

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

#294

Post by hyperbovine »

asenna wrote: post #245
nitrogen wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the fact that the VCs want to get paid and GitHub's employees want to keep working, how big of a skeleton crew would it take to keep a site like GitHub running in "maintenance" mode?

Can you really put something in "maintenance" mode without killing it? Maintaining the app and not moving forward with new features and adding value (because of lack of resources), I would assume it would just die eventually.

I don't understand this obsession with the first derivative of value. GitHub already provides loads of value. I understand they need resources to keep the lights on, but they could do that by recouping a tiny fee from their users and most everyone would be happy.

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

#295

Post by wcummings »

bootload wrote: post #149

"GitHub quickly became essential to the code-writing process at technology companies of all sizes and gave birth to a new generation of programmers by hosting their open-source code for free." How much would you be willing to pay to store your open-source code at github?

$0

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

#296

Post by cyphar »

gizmo wrote: post #242
cyphar wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an easy test to see if such statements are racist. Swap "white" for any other race. If it sounds like racism, then the original statement is by necessity also racist.

That's a terrible test, really. It presumes that all races/ethnicities are treated equally by society, when they fact they aren't. A test like that only works when you swap like for like, and you don't. For instance, many ethnic jokes (racist jokes) only work because they exploit racial stereotypes. Those jokes cease to work when you swap in a different race. Does that mean the original jokes were not racist? Of cour…

> A test like that only works when you swap like for like, and you don't.

Maybe I'm odd for thinking that black people and white people should be treated equally. But sure, let's pretend that racism is only possible to be inflicted on minorities.

> Saying "there are too many black guys in the senate" on the other hand is racist

No. It would be racist to say "there are too many black guys in the senate -- let's get rid of all of them!". The same applies if you say the same for white people.

> and actions to diversify tech are not racist against white people either.

I support diversity. But hiring only one group of people is NOT DIVERSITY. It's the _precise opposite_. Historical context or no, by definition you cannot claim that you're making a workplace more diverse if you're only making a decision to systematically hire only one group of people (even if they are the minority, because after X years they will become a majority).

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

#297

Post by mcphage »

selectodude wrote: post #264
mcphage wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because a discount to them signifies a moral victory, or that they're not being taken advantage of, or they simply want to believe they're great negotiators or something like that. I don't get it, but I have seen it often enough for it not to be unusual. Then why not raise your price to $99, and let them negotiate you down to... $35?

You've just described the business model of essentially every department store.

Yes.

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

#298

Post by jessaustin »

woodruffw wrote: post #158
ZenoArrow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, as Git is a DVCS even if GitHub went down the repos still live on local developer machines, so it'd be easy enough to move to a different Git hosting provider.

It's worth nothing that GitHub isn't just a pretty Git frontend anymore. It's also a de-facto CDN and host for projects (Homebrew, CocoaPods come to mind), as well as a blogging and demonstration platform (GitHub pages). In these roles, GitHub is of tremendous value and not immediately replaceable.

It's my impression that they really don't want to be a CDN. One might suggest that as a service that could generate revenue if they charged for it, however none of the cheapskates using GitHub as a CDN would ever consider paying for a CDN...

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

#299

Post by arctangent »

dsacco wrote: post #258
tominous wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too true. I had a potential client who had already spent months and a bunch of money on external consultants regarding an intermittent identity management integration issue. They heard about me through word-of-mouth. I offered a fixed-price "no win, no fee" rate equal to about a week of my normal hourly rate. I thought it was a great deal given how much they'd already spent, plus it gave some certainty to them around…

Forgive me if this comes across as patronizing, but I think you might avoid this in the future by doing the following: * Charge daily or weekly, not hourly. * Don't anchor your results to "free" (this includes not getting paid unless specific results happen). * If a customer has been repeatedly burned by other consultants and believes this problem could be solved in an hour, consider either 1) avoiding those customer…

> Charge daily or weekly, not hourly.

This can work for the provider of a service, in certain circumstances.

But my opinion is that it is always better to charge a price that reflects the value delivered, no matter how long it takes to deliver that value.

There is a (possibly apocryphal) anecdote I read once in which a consultant was brought in to service a machine with many parts. He replaced one part and invoiced (say) $10,000 for replacing a part worth $1. When asked why his bill was so high, he said: "I charge $1 for the replacement part. The other $9,999 is for knowing which part to replace."

As knowledge workers, those who are skilled must remember that "hours spent sitting in a seat" is not a valid measure of their productivity and should not permit clueless managers/clients from judging them in that way.

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

#300

Post by lowmess »

hyperbovine wrote: post #294
asenna wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you really put something in "maintenance" mode without killing it? Maintaining the app and not moving forward with new features and adding value (because of lack of resources), I would assume it would just die eventually.

I don't understand this obsession with the first derivative of value. GitHub already provides loads of value. I understand they need resources to keep the lights on, but they could do that by recouping a tiny fee from their users and most everyone would be happy.

don't they already attempt to do that though? i don't consider $7/month a large fee. (granted, they could probably get more subscribers at $3-5, but i'm assuming they landed on $7 for a reason)
Post reply on HN