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

381–390 of 594 posts

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

#381

Post by kpil »

quanticle wrote: post #279
adrr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Microsoft already has Visual Studio Team Services, which is its Git-compatible source code and work-item-tracking system. Like GitLab, VSTS is focusing on enterprise sales first (though there is a free-tier that you can play with). Why would Microsoft want to buy Github and try to refocus it when it already has a product that caters to its enterprise clientele?

Because developers like GitHub?

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

#382

Post by nitrogen »

empath75 wrote: post #374
adventured wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post VC investment, GitHub would never be allowed to exist in maintenance mode. It would be liquidated in one form or another if things were that dire. Once they took the venture capital, the possible outcomes narrowed considerably.

They could go non-profit like the Mozilla foundation.

But not if the owners (investors) want their money back instead.

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

#383

Post by nslindtner »

rexreed wrote: post #319

It seemed that Github was doing just fine accomplishing their mission and goals when they were bootstrapping, but things got ridiculous with a massive (and possibly unneeded) VC investment. Or at least an investment of that humongous sum of money. Can someone explain the rationale behind pumping all this money into firms that clearly don't need such vast amounts of it, which only spurs exorbitant and unnecessary spen…

From the outside it looks like a land grab game. Competetion is heating up (bitbucket, gitlab, tfs online, etc).

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

#384

Post by flukus »

wapz wrote: post #375
flukus wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But github has a monetization strategy, they're a paid service. This is more about their headcount expanding and possibly losing paying customers because they decided to get political.

I didn't follow when github started getting political. What happened?

Opalgate:

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

TLDR: Some possibly transphobic person said something on the internet that got traced back to his github account. Some person not connected to the project complains and get's transphobic person removed from github. Github hires complainer to "improve diversity".

That and a couple of other things like their code of conduct have indicated that github wants to be the PC police more than a service provider. I want a dumb service provider.

I don't know if google has cleared out their "fake news" but the top hits on the subject are from heavily biased sources (geekfeminism.com and breitbart).

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

#385

Post by msane »

Shorel wrote: post #317

Everyone is comparing GitHub with GitLab in the comments, but they are ignoring the other competitor. I think Atlassian is the company that makes the most out of the git marketplace, even if they have fewer customers. They are simply more efficient, and are ready to take over with Bitbucket if GitHub fails. Also, many companies pay for Jira+Confluence even if they use GitHub.

> I think Atlassian is the company that makes the most out of the git marketplace

Think or know? For enterprise version control, I would be surprised if they made more than Github. I'll take enterprise Github over Stash any day.

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

#386

Post by gottam »

flukus wrote: post #384
wapz wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't follow when github started getting political. What happened?

Opalgate: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 TLDR: Some possibly transphobic person said something on the internet that got traced back to his github account. Some person not connected to the project complains and get's transphobic person removed from github. Github hires complainer to "improve diversity". That and a couple of other things like their code of conduct have indicated that github wants to be the PC…

this makes me wonder how many of their hires actually add value rather than just consuming company resources

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

#387

Post by gragas »

flukus wrote: post #384
wapz wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't follow when github started getting political. What happened?

Opalgate: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 TLDR: Some possibly transphobic person said something on the internet that got traced back to his github account. Some person not connected to the project complains and get's transphobic person removed from github. Github hires complainer to "improve diversity". That and a couple of other things like their code of conduct have indicated that github wants to be the PC…

Wow, I didn't know the higher ups at GitHub were that unethical.

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

#388

Post by rexreed »

nslindtner wrote: post #383
rexreed wrote: post #319

It seemed that Github was doing just fine accomplishing their mission and goals when they were bootstrapping, but things got ridiculous with a massive (and possibly unneeded) VC investment. Or at least an investment of that humongous sum of money. Can someone explain the rationale behind pumping all this money into firms that clearly don't need such vast amounts of it, which only spurs exorbitant and unnecessary spen…

From the outside it looks like a land grab game. Competetion is heating up (bitbucket, gitlab, tfs online, etc).

but is throwing all this money at a company who clearly doesn't know how to effectively deploy it to grab that land (those expenditures are ridiculous) the best way to do it?

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

#389

Post by wapz »

flukus wrote: post #384
wapz wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't follow when github started getting political. What happened?

Opalgate: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 TLDR: Some possibly transphobic person said something on the internet that got traced back to his github account. Some person not connected to the project complains and get's transphobic person removed from github. Github hires complainer to "improve diversity". That and a couple of other things like their code of conduct have indicated that github wants to be the PC…

Thanks for the info and specific link. I definitely never heard of this.

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

#390

Post by sitkack »

monkmartinez wrote: post #331
moritzplassnig wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> 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. And it shouldn't be different. If the financials are not well, then the financials are not well. Docker, like github, DOES NOT have their future "locked up" 100%. There are a lot of reasons why…

    git remote add neworigin ...
Post reply on HN