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

GitHub Sponsors

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 516 posts

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#61

Post by diggan »

paulddraper wrote: post #50
diggan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Before the acquisition, the work on GitHub was to make GitHub sustainable in it's own right. Now, with Microsoft owning it, they have given up on that idea since Microsoft mainly get their profits elsewhere. Instead, GitHub have now become a loss-leader for Microsoft, where every feature is meant to either lock in open developers in a closed source platform, or attract more open source developers to use t…

> Now, with Microsoft owning it, they have given up on that idea since Microsoft mainly get their profits elsewhere. Is that really an issue? How much did has Google's non-monetization of Chrome hurt the product vs helped it?

Yes, it is an issue.

Why would Microsoft prioritize development and improvements of GitHub when they don't earn a profit from it?

When (in the future) Microsoft needs to earn more profits, they have to make a choice.

Either they improve GitHub and get more developers on board with X.

Or, they improve their Cloud Hosting service, which actually improve profits.

Since GitHub is basically just a cost (with the hopeful promise of future returns of developer mindshare) while Azure makes profit, it's much more likely Microsoft will focus on improving Azure before GitHub.

And as a GitHub user, that idea makes me worry.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#62

Post by dessant »

This is the best thing to have happened to open source since GitHub has launched. Thank you to whomever has internally pushed for it!

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#63

Post by anc84 »

always4getpass wrote: post #48

While seemingly good news and will definitely have positive side effects to open source projects, I cannot stop myself from questioning if this is just good old Microsoft using one of its edges over Gitlab (money) to come on top. After all, this is the embrace, extend, and extinguish company. Anyhow, I'm looking forward to see a similar feature implemented by Gitlab, even without the matching donations.

This is EXTEND.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#64

Post by amirathi »

To summarize,

- OSS contributors on GitHub can apply to become "sponsored developer" to accept donations

- Developer sets monthly sponsorship tiers (amounts & benefits)

- GitHub will match upto $5k in donation in Developer's first year (1:1 match)

- GitHub will not charge any fees in the first year

- In the future, they may charge a nominal processing fee

- Currently only individuals can donate to individuals, org/team support (on both sides) to come soon

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#65

Post by Leace »

diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

> Obviously, I'm a bit biased, as I run a project for creating transparent open source infrastructure. But I do think this is a important issue, and I'm getting more and more scared GitHub is out to make open source development more ivory tower-like.

This point is brought many times. Why use GitHub if we can host git repositories anywhere? (A: GitHub providers discovery). Why use GitHub PRs if we have mailing lists? (A: GitHub has better UX).

The same is with their Sponsors program, registering billing method and clicking on a button is all that's needed. No separate sites with different UI.

For the record I'm also not happy with the centralized structure of it (it reminds me of early Google), but I get why it's getting popular.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#66

Post by mythz »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #56
bennofs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Argument is that it's bad for the market, as it makes it hard for competitors which aren't part of such a large company and hence need to make profit.

Isn't this also an argument against every VC-funded startup in existence?

And basically every free product released by large companies which prioritizes mass distribution and user base over direct product cost. It definitely makes it much harder for the few remaining competitors but also benefits the far greater number of users.

They definitely have a competitive advantage where they're able to build and give away features for free to attract larger mind-share, but it's also the playbook of most large companies with freemium or gateway products. Not seeing why Microsoft needs to limit themselves to the same constraints as their less resourceful competitors.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#67

Post by mikro2nd »

paulddraper wrote: post #50
diggan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Before the acquisition, the work on GitHub was to make GitHub sustainable in it's own right. Now, with Microsoft owning it, they have given up on that idea since Microsoft mainly get their profits elsewhere. Instead, GitHub have now become a loss-leader for Microsoft, where every feature is meant to either lock in open developers in a closed source platform, or attract more open source developers to use t…

> Now, with Microsoft owning it, they have given up on that idea since Microsoft mainly get their profits elsewhere. Is that really an issue? How much did has Google's non-monetization of Chrome hurt the product vs helped it?

The issue is not one of "monetization" vs. "non-monetization", but one of priorities being driven primarily by the interests of a corporate surveillance capitalist owner rather than what's healthy for the community.

Google's agendas (advertising, amp, etc.) are clear in the design decisions taken for Chrome, and slowly we're beginning to see analogous prioritisation come to GitHub. Expect more to come in time.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#68

Post by diggan »

Leace wrote: post #65
diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

> Obviously, I'm a bit biased, as I run a project for creating transparent open source infrastructure. But I do think this is a important issue, and I'm getting more and more scared GitHub is out to make open source development more ivory tower-like. This point is brought many times. Why use GitHub if we can host git repositories anywhere? (A: GitHub providers discovery). Why use GitHub PRs if we have mailing lists?…

I love the UX of GitHub and don't get me wrong, I use and depend on GitHub for my day-to-day work and also my own hobbies.

I do understand that people like it as well. It's so easy to get started and it just works, most of the time.

But it just doesn't sit well with me, that we as open source developers, are depending on a platform that is closed-source for so much. I think I could see past that, if GitHub in itself was sustainable.

But with the new owner who sees GitHub as a way to get marketshare of developers, and not as it's own entity, it's hard to continue to cheer on them. When Microsoft have to either increase profits/decrease expenses and they choose between Azure and GitHub, I'm pretty sure the effort will either be to decrease the expenses of GitHub, or increase the profits of Azure. None of those two ways are good for the users of GitHub in the long-term.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#69

Post by Padrio »

diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

I would really like to say that Microsoft is currently infiltrating the OSS world and pursuing their strategy, which they have successfully implemented dozens of times. Does anyone remember EEE[0]? If this is the case here, it would be the greatest successful coup in the history of the Internet.

[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_Extend_and_Extinguish

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#70

Post by the_duke »

diggan wrote: post #59

Ugh, not again! First they introduce a Package Registry that not only splits the ecosystem in two parts but also has no open governance or even open source code. Great. Now they are doing the same thing with donations. Instead of collaborating with already open platforms (like OpenCollective or LiberaPay), they decide to build their own closed-source platform. I love that more people are figuring out ways to pay open…

I agree.

All the recent additions to Github are superficially very nice and convenient features (Actions, package registry, Sponsors, Dependabot).

But they represent a very significant change in mindset. Github is turning from a neutral code hosting platform with a myriad of equally empowered third party integrations into the direction of a "all in one" dev tool and platform.

I understand the internal pressures to do this: increased popularity, added value proposition for customers, more revenue.

But: all the built-in tools will have an inherent advantage over third party solutions. This also inevitably leads to increased lock-in and homogenization.

I was very critical of the Microsoft acquisition for similar reasons, and considering the monumental role Github represents for open source today, I am very sceptical of the way things are going.

We might very well regret centralizing everything open source around Github in a few years.

Post reply on HN