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

431–440 of 594 posts

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

#431

Post by pawadu »

woodruffw wrote: post #313
jessaustin wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I can't blame them (being GitHub). Bandwidth and storage can be expensive. That being said, I think it's inaccurate to characterize the people using GitHub as a CDN uniformly as "cheapskates". Many are just open source developers, often of limited means, trying to expose their work to the largest audience possible.

I disagree.

When you just start your project you may use github as your CDN and hope no one notices, but when you are as big as homebrew using someones elses resources like this is a pretty bad practice.

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

#432

Post by flukus »

jolux wrote: post #430
flukus wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an isolated incident, there was also the code of conduct that makes it clear where GitHub is heading, and that is getting coding mixed up with politics.

What? This? https://github.com/blog/2039-adopting-the-open-code-of-condu... That's from July 2015, a full seven months before she was hired.

I never said she was responsible for it, but the same line of thinking behind that is what allowed a professional bully to get hired in the first place.

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

#433

Post by fergie »

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,…

SourceForge and GitHub feel different. SourceForge was always _really_ spammy from day one, GitHub has a far superior product.

It seems logical that GitHub will eventually figure out how to make money, even if it is just by following the tried and trusted "project management system" model

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

#434

Post by jolux »

flukus wrote: post #429
jolux wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is she spreading her politics through GitHub?

With more bullshit like the diversity hiring spree theyre going on. But the internal politics doesn't worry me as much of the fact that they hired a professional bully that can influence who is allowed to use GitHub.

So you disagree with their internal politics? So what? As meh said in the Opal thread, you can absolutely use a tool made by people whose politics you disagree with.

Why are you assuming that GitHub will discriminate against you for your politics? I fully support your choice and in fact I think it's justified, but if you really didn't care about politics, you would keep using GitHub until they kick you off of it for thoughtcrime, as @meh would have the "SJWs" doing in that thread. It honestly just seems that you want a platform whose politics you agree with, and don't want to use a platform whose politics you disagree with.

That is totally fine and valid and is a thing everyone has the right to do. Nonetheless, it's still a politics. Politics is unavoidable, it is a consequence of being able to think and disagree. You can dislike the internal politics, but to do so you have to hold contradictory views yourself. That is the essence of disagreement, and cloaking it in anti-politics does nothing to change that.

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

#435

Post by Turbots »

kpil wrote: post #379
sorbits wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they continue to grow which seems to be the case, they will be break-even long before they run out of money What are you basing that on? The article says that in 2015 they had revenue of $95 million and lost $27 million. For the first 3 quarters of 2016 the article says they “surpassed last year’s revenue […] with $98 million”, but also that they lost $66 million in that same period. So while revenue doubled, th…

As an anecdote, I was called into a meeting with the CTO of a fairly large European bank, and a sales guy from GitHub a couple of month ago. I got the feeling that they are selling rather aggressively right now.

I got a sales rep from Github coming in at a client in January. Got any pointers?

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

#436

Post by shadowmint »

StreamBright wrote: post #411
jolux wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very suggestion that GitHub getting "political" supported by a single issue thread caused them to lose $66 million dollars is so laughable as to barely warrant confrontation.

On the other hand do you have any insight they are not losing a large sum of this money because paying customers are leaving for platforms that are not politicised?

Suggestion:

    Something may be causing something.
Counter Argument:

    There's no proof of that.
Counter Counter Argument:

    Ah, but is there any evidence that 'Something' is *not* causing it.
No, you see, that's not how logic works. You provide evidence for something; not the absence of evidence for it not happening.

There's even a name for it. It's called: argumentum ad ignorantiam (guess what that translates as), also known as an appeal to ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

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

#437

Post by cr3ative »

daveguy wrote: post #349
alistproducer2 wrote: post #340

The subtext to this (at least why this made it to the front page) is "github is lighting money on fire, can't last forever, but github is infrastructure-status now what if it disappears?" I think this anxiety is why there's a lot of work being done in the decentralized space right now. The UX-side of "web 3.0" is sorely lacking but I think it's only a matter of time before people begin to crack it. I'd love to see so…

Wait. We're on web 3.0 now? What does this version add?

About two meg per page

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

#438

Post by jolux »

flukus wrote: post #432
jolux wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? This? https://github.com/blog/2039-adopting-the-open-code-of-condu... That's from July 2015, a full seven months before she was hired.

I never said she was responsible for it, but the same line of thinking behind that is what allowed a professional bully to get hired in the first place.

Professional bully? She's a Ruby developer, and a damned good one at that by all accounts. Even if you choose to categorize her as a "bully," it's very evident that "bullying" is a hobby of hers and not related to how well she does her job (programming). If her contributions to community management software are valuable, what does it matter her politics?

I reiterate that if you are looking for a place to host your code where a) nobody has political opinions or b) everybody agrees with you about everything, you will never find it.

You may be the only person in the whole world without any political opinions whatsoever. I realize that's difficult and I applaud your intellectual independence.

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

#439

Post by anonbanker »

sumedh wrote: post #287
inthewoods wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

slowly being replaced with sli.mg, the way that reddit is slowly being replaced with voat.co.

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

#440

Post by dijit »

Apocryphon wrote: post #214
dijit wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I wrote about the problem some time ago albeit very briefly. https://blog.dijit.sh/moving-away-from-github

Thank you for providing substantive information about the internal workings at GitHub.

It's almost as if I am judging a company by what they say. Shocking.
Post reply on HN