Live data from Hacker News

GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

bloomberg.com

521–530 of 594 posts

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

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> psychopathy isn't so much a disorder as a spectrum on which we all sit I think you're getting a bit off in terms of perspective here. There's a huge difference between [words on a page] and [Human being I'm talking to]. I might well say something that makes someone on the internet cry, I might laugh and post pubbietears.jpg if they said my comment had made them cry. If I saw someone crying in close proximity it's l…

Oh, for sure, but I think it has an influence on our behaviour in the "real" world, and not a positive one. It's anecdotal, but several personal friends are friends with each other no longer in the wake of the Brexit vote. Actions in the virtual world have consequences in the physical world. (And, sorry, my wry sense of humour doesn't necessarily work in plain text and I should make more effort to remember that. To m…

The Brexit vote isn't "the virtual world" though, so I'm a bit confused here.

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

#522
post #59
post #9

I always freak about some other country attacking github. The world would crumble/ it's probably some sort of weird national security scenario.

Some other country? I'm fairly sure all countries have developers relying on github.

Don't think North Korea is a heavy GitHub user.

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

#523
post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That wasn't a sarcastic comment. Since you actually worked at the company, I give you more credit than these outside political commentators.

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

#524
post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, for sure, but I think it has an influence on our behaviour in the "real" world, and not a positive one. It's anecdotal, but several personal friends are friends with each other no longer in the wake of the Brexit vote. Actions in the virtual world have consequences in the physical world. (And, sorry, my wry sense of humour doesn't necessarily work in plain text and I should make more effort to remember that. To m…

The Brexit vote isn't "the virtual world" though, so I'm a bit confused here.

But the angry angry facebook comment slapfights are in the virtual world and are doubtless partly to blame for a lot of sundered acquaintances.

I can think of a few comments by family members (aunts/uncles etc especially) on rants by 20 somethings on facebook about how the idiot olds were screwing us all over - being quite hurt by the positions taken in the rants.

Some of this is to do with the weirdness that is facebook crossing virtual/real world interactions. But most of the people who are still obsessed with spouting their personal views on [Global warming/Brexit/Trump/Syria/etc] will quickly find a partner to trade verbal blows with

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

#525
post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of the value of Github is that nobody wants to bother using anything else

> nobody citation needed

https://github.com/bevry/meta/issues/15#issuecomment-5529327...

Copied:

(Just found this thread; sorry for the late reply!)

if we postulate that moving all of bevry's projects to gitlab creates a snowball of other projects and communities doing the same I disagree. When a field is as dominated by one player as OSS development is dominated by GitHub, it is extremely hard to break that hold.

For example: Facebook dominates social media. Within Facebook, there are several organizations, many of which are reasonably sized, and which do good work. Now…suppose one of those organizations left Facebook for a more benevolent social network. Or even two or three of them. Do you really believe this would create a “snowball effect”, resulting in a mass exodus from Facebook to the more-benevolent social network?

Of course not. Everybody knows that Facebook is quite possibly the sleaziest, least trustworthy company on the Web. (If you disagree, I’d feel confident that you’d concede that it is in the top five such companies, at the very least.) And, in fact, people have tried to create trustworthy, privacy-respecting alternatives to Facebook (like Diaspora, Friendica, and Tent).

Diaspora launched in 2010. Although its decentralized nature makes it harder to get concrete numbers for its user base, the best I could find puts the number around 380K. After four years.

Four.

Why? Well, it’s not because people prefer to have their privacy invaded, and it’s not because people like one central company to amass dangerous amounts of personal information to sell to advertisers (and god knows who else!). It’s because people are on Facebook. It has all the social capital, and—from the standpoint of where people choose to put their time in—that is more important than ideology, decentralization, technological advantage, and privacy.

I dislike this intensely, but it’s true.

For a while, people were pretty angry at Twitter (even though it is a more ethical company than Facebook, by orders of magnitude). So, some people tried to get a “snowball effect” rolling for their alternative, Identica.

At 1.5 million users, it’s been a more successful “benevolent alternative” to Twitter than Diaspora was to Facebook. But that’s still less than 1% of Twitters 241 million users (source).

GitLab may have more merit going for it than GitHub, but that’s not enough. Moving everything to GitLab will:

Cost a lot of time and effort to migrate the codebase Cost a lot of time and effort for existing developers to readjust their workflows and learn the differences of GitLab Most important of all, it will reduce the visibility of every last project to a small percentage of the current size. And don’t think that linking to the new location will help. The alternative social networking sites I mentioned above had massive campaigns, many of which were prominently featured in tech magazines and blogs with millions of viewers. Linking from a popular old location to an unpopular new location does not work like forwarding e-mail; traffic won’t simply follow the link and continue the same behavior at GitLib like nothing’s changed. Perhaps a few individuals might…but you’ll still lose far, far more contributors in the end.

And what happens to open source projects that cease to be developed? They die. And the communities that once breathed life into them die, as well.

I cannot protest this idea strongly enough. If you move to GitLab, perhaps you can keep the company’s core developers active enough to keep the projects alive. Perhaps you might even find some short-term success in convincing a few contributors to keep working on your projects.

And if you move to GitLab…I really, really hope that they do. But I think that moving to GitLab will do as much good for your repositories as moving them to a private server for bevry employees only. Slightly better than that, perhaps…but not by much.

I would love to be proven wrong about what I’ve written here. But I don’t think that I am.

Please: reconsider this. Not just for the company, and not just for the good of your software, but for your extended community.

I believe that what is good for your extended community is also good for your software, and your company, too.

Please reconsider.

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

#526
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. ;)

Good point, I never thought of applying that technique here, it always struck me as a no brainer decision. The reality is you need to hear a few objections to start understanding the mind of the prospect and how to counter their objections.

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

#527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa. Dumb money, those VCs, if this is true. A scrappy low-budget startup can do just fine with a medium sized vm on one of the several places renting vms, running a simple source code control system server. Blowing dozens of megabucks to build a palace in a high-rent district to replace something that's close to free seems, well, dumb.

Github is better. It just is. You don't have to worry about backups, it has great tools built on top of the vcs to make working with it and project management easier. It makes it easier to manage the D part of DVCS, and it lets you easily put your tools into the community. I suspect they see it as a charity case, if true.

Of course github is better. That's not my point.

The question I'm asking is whether it's better enough to justify a vast investment. New businesses -- startups -- need to take actions to conserve their cash, and sometimes "good enough" is good enough.

It's especially important to get this right when one choice is an unprofitable unicorn-style company with vast cash outflow.

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

#528
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.

They still had remote positions the last time I looked but they were more client facing roles. Sales and tech consultants.

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

#529
post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody citation needed

https://github.com/bevry/meta/issues/15#issuecomment-5529327... Copied: (Just found this thread; sorry for the late reply!) if we postulate that moving all of bevry's projects to gitlab creates a snowball of other projects and communities doing the same I disagree. When a field is as dominated by one player as OSS development is dominated by GitHub, it is extremely hard to break that hold. For example: Facebook domin…

Clearly there are network effects in open source SaaS hosting. That is why at GitLab we're focussing on other parts of the market first. See https://about.gitlab.com/strategy/#sequence

We appreciate open source projects moving to GitLab.com and we're seeing more and more of that. But it does reduce the visibility of the project so people should take your warning into account. Our focus right now is making GitLab.com more performant for the people that do use it.

"Cost a lot of time and effort to migrate the codebase" => hopefully we solved that, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189475 that says "GitLab has a migration feature that "just works". Was painless here"

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

#530
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually prefer bitbucket because I don't have to pay for private repos.

You can have private repos for free on GitLab.com too. Disclaimer: I work at GitLab.

I was completely unaware of that. Thanks for the heads up. I use gitlab at work, and now I might try it for my personal projects.
Post reply on HN