Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cost of Developers

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 238 posts

Re: The Cost of Developers

#191

Post by vvanders »

Veelox wrote: post #148
0xfeba wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. In hindsight, the retail store distribution model of software lasted far longer (and still does) than it ever should have.

I think you are underestimating how much easier high speed internet enabled downloading of software over buying a CD

Yeah, I very clearly remember a "the sky is falling" sentiment when Steam launched a download only version of Half-Life 2.

Or take Netflix, very few thought that would be the streaming juggernaut that it is into today. Alas poor Blockbuster, we knew you well.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#192

Post by singingfish »

2RTZZSro wrote: post #152
singingfish wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are quite a few things about gitlab that smell of amateur hour with the way it's put together, but on the whole it's a really good product and I like that enough to make it usable is free open source, and the CI stuff is much nicer than any other I have used (although the way we've put it together, we've hit its limitations a bit).

You accuse Gitlab of "quite a few [problematic] things" but do not put forward even a single one of those.

I was on mobile and on my way to bed :P. Lots of page refresh related problems, and likes to exhaust memory from time to time are the two standouts.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#193

Post by rkeene2 »

daok wrote: post #190
rkeene2 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this. I tried to use it when it was launched because it purported support for a build farm, but it was too terrible to figure out how to use it and I gave up after a couple of hours of trying to figure out how to make it do ANYTHING useful.

You should give it back a try, they have been improved quite a lot since all these years.

All these years being the 2 years since it was released ?

Re: The Cost of Developers

#194

Post by kgwgk »

scarface74 wrote: post #189
kgwgk wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using overvalued stock could make the acquisition “cheaper” than the sticker price (not really free). However, they’ve said they’ll do extraordinary buybacks to cancel the dilution in six months following the transaction. So unless the price of MSFT shares has a large correction during that period they are really going to spend over $7bn in cash.

Just to add to your response and making assumptions about how you came up with the $7 billion.... The new stock is about 1% of the total number of shares outstanding. Thier total market cap is around. $785 billion. If they did a stock buyback to cancel the dilution it would be 7.85 billion. My numbers are rounded - the new stock is actually less than 1% and the market cap as of right now is a little less than 785 bil…

I just rounded down (to give a conservative estimate) the $7.5bn I've seen everywhere. If they are giving them new MSFT shares worth $7.5bn, buying those shares back would cost around $7.5bn assuming the price doesn't move. Of course it may be significantly more or less that depending on the evolution of the stock price.

By the way, I said they will buy back stock in the next six months but it will be in the six months following the closing of the transaction (which is expected to take place by the end of the year). I've edited my previous comment slightly.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#195

Post by Aloha »

dalbasal wrote: post #96
heydenberk wrote: post #22

> the App Store dramatically lowered the barriers to entry for developers Is there any platform with higher barriers to entry than the App Store? iOS development requires a proprietary toolchain only available on Apple hardware, programming languages hardly used elsewhere, not to mention the $99/year developer fee and the litany of vague and arbitrarily enforced rules and content guidelines for App Store release.

Barriers are things that prevent you from doing stuff. To start a bank, you need billions, a reputation and friends in the industry and central bank approval. Even a whip smart billionaire would struggle. Getting into the app store requires £1k of hardware, enough programming chops to learn a new language and the sort of bureaucratic hurdles you might encounter signing up to a cable tv contract. If you don't have the…

I think starting a bank involves high hundreds of thousands, or millions - but I'm in the US - starting a bank is actually pretty easy here compared to other countries.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#196

Post by [deleted] »

scarface74 wrote: post #39
rsp1984 wrote: post #13

There are times when I really like the thoughtful analysis on Stratechery and there are other times when I think it's a complete pile of detached-from-reality horsesh!t. Today is of the 2nd kind. What it also has is a potentially fatal weakness: no platform with user-based leverage. Sorry, what? Windows still has > 90% market share on desktop. If that isn't "user-based leverage" I don't know what is. This, by the way…

Sorry, what? Windows still has > 90% market share on desktop. If that isn't "user-based leverage" I don't know what is. In the grand scheme of things. No one cares about desktop development. Walk into a VCs office and tell them that you have the next great idea for a Windows app and watch how fast you get laughed out of the office. How many developers are going to flock to writing Windows apps? As much as I hate it,…

[deleted]

Re: The Cost of Developers

#197

Post by endorphone »

scarface74 wrote: post #52
brutus1213 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is what I don't get. It is far easier for github's dev community to move to an alternate than Facebook users. Unless there is revenue to back it up, I don't understand the 7.5 Billion price tag. Heck .. Docker for 10 Billion might have been plausible. What are the barriers to another entrant? This acquisition reminds me of the Minecraft acquisition. It did not make financial sense to me either. If Nadella keeps…

This acquisition was essential free. This time, really, the profits don’t matter: Microsoft is paying by issuing about 73 million new shares of stock, which cost it nothing. (It’s a tiny dilution, given the company’s 7.7 billion shares outstanding; what’s more, the share price rose on the news, which means that existing shareholders are happy to be diluted.) https://slate.com/business/2018/06/microsoft-github-deal-wh…

That seems like spurious logic, especially given that Microsoft has spent many, many billions of their cash hoard on a stock buyback program (as does Apple, etc). By the broken logic of that Slate article, they're throwing money down a well foolishly because shares outstanding are "free".

Further, noting the current day price change is always the basis for countless nonsense articles. The shares haven't been diluted yet -- not until the deal closes later in the year -- and a temporary blip one way or another is close to meaningless.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#198

Post by endorphone »

oblio wrote: post #58
brutus1213 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is what I don't get. It is far easier for github's dev community to move to an alternate than Facebook users. Unless there is revenue to back it up, I don't understand the 7.5 Billion price tag. Heck .. Docker for 10 Billion might have been plausible. What are the barriers to another entrant? This acquisition reminds me of the Minecraft acquisition. It did not make financial sense to me either. If Nadella keeps…

He tripled the stock price. I doubt shareholders are sad :)

Brutus said eventually, and that's an entirely reasonable statement. Microsoft has burned many, many billions on foolish ventures to try to regain namespace, while at the same time the entirety of their revenue is still based on the coasting remains of the empire they built a decade ago. Microsoft's revenue has stagnated, despite endlessly acquiring and adding new verticals to the stack.

To put it another way, simply doing the SAP and squeezing Windows + Office would have netted a much more profitable business than everything Microsoft has been doing.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#199

Post by mywittyname »

scarface74 wrote: post #113
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the place of myth and legend: outside of SV. I know, it's crazy.

Name some companies making any substantial money selling Windows desktop apps besides Microsoft and Adobe? Again games don't count, they aren't for the most part developing "Windows apps" they are developing apps on top of game engines.

Games are one of the few remaining pieces of software that require tight platform integration. And even this is changing with WebGL.

If you take games totally out of the equation, App Store profits drop substantially. Most third-party apps are games or native wrappers for web UIs (pinterest, spotify, netflix). Of those, most are free or tied to a subscription that's device independent.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#200

Post by scarface74 »

endorphone wrote: post #197
scarface74 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This acquisition was essential free. This time, really, the profits don’t matter: Microsoft is paying by issuing about 73 million new shares of stock, which cost it nothing. (It’s a tiny dilution, given the company’s 7.7 billion shares outstanding; what’s more, the share price rose on the news, which means that existing shareholders are happy to be diluted.) https://slate.com/business/2018/06/microsoft-github-deal-wh…

That seems like spurious logic, especially given that Microsoft has spent many, many billions of their cash hoard on a stock buyback program (as does Apple, etc). By the broken logic of that Slate article, they're throwing money down a well foolishly because shares outstanding are "free". Further, noting the current day price change is always the basis for countless nonsense articles. The shares haven't been diluted…

Remember that AOL was able to buy Time Warner with inflated stock. If you have inflated currency (I.e. stock), why not use it to buy some real assets?
Post reply on HN