"Little-known social coding start-up". Got to love the WSJ.
Eventually they'll be an overnight sensation!
Github Raises $100 Million
71–80 of 230 posts
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#72Okay, I think now is the time for GitHub to shut up about being Bootstrap and Bullshit. I think it's high time. I absolutely love the service but this is so lame. Bunch of hypocrites.
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#73Okay, a question: I have a github ( http://github.com/blhack -- nothing too interesting there), but only use it in the "free" way; saving my javascript stuff, and keeping track of some arduino projects. "Github" and "money" in the same thought here triggered me wondering about maybe buying a monthly plan from them, and letting them host all of my code for work, play, etc. (stuff I'm too embarrassed to release, ha) Ma…
> if this was $5/mo for unlimited repos, I'd have a plan now
http://bitbucket.org $0/mo for unlimited repos, you got an even better plan now
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of my non-programmer/startup friends know who or what a github is so I think that given the WSJ's audience, it's a fair statement.
No it's not. Something like "Social coding startup GitHub, hugely popular in the coding world, ...." would be a whole lot clearer. Little-known, though technically correct, implies that they are not well known in any circle.
I'd go even further, and say that GitHub is incredibly well-known within their target market (developers). Everyone else doesn't matter, as the business will not be built around the general public.
WSJ is supposed to provide good reporting with strong bias towards informing potential investors (as a financial/business news paper). The wording choice doesn't make a strong case for value associated with the company and sounds like some no-name co. just got a pile of money that they are like to lose. (An exaggeration on my part for illustration purposes only.)
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
TPW (or some early GH employee) has posted somewhere that yes, the cost of servers on your own is cheaper. However, the original goal of GitHub was to build a tool that allowed collaboration easier. You pay for the experience and the tools and the network IMO.
Ah, gotcha. I guess I was missing out on the social aspect of it. But I have to wonder: if you're hosting that many private repos...how much does "social" play into it?
Change social to collaborative and you've got your answer.
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#76I'm a little surprised by all of the anti-VC sentiment in this thread so far, especially from this community. I'm perhaps even more surprised by the "what do they need 100 million dollars" sentiment that is being floated around.
Github is an impressive company that has, so far, blown away its competition in many aspects. The fact that they have been self-bootstrapped up until this point and that they are profitable to boot is a testament to Tom's incredible leadership and their absolutely exceptional team.
Tom has made it abundantly clear that he is not against venture capital. He just thinks it is starting off on the wrong foot if you try to build your company with the expectation of relying on venture capital from the start.
So he's taken Github to profitability, and in four years they've all managed to transform the way most of us collaborate online. That is a profound achievement, but those responsible for such a radical change aren't generally the type to sit idly by on the backs of their previous accomplishments.
They want to do bigger and better things with Github. They're not quite done trying to change the world. Now they are not only profitable, but they have substantial capital to invest in further innovations.
With 0 dollars, a couple of guys built something amazing. I can't wait to see what they can do with 100 million.
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person who figures out how to get movie/music studios and the like to use version control is going to be very, very rich.
Just curious, what makes you think they don't already use version control prolifically? What opportunity do you see? One studio I'm familiar with has some assets with change history back through to SCCS -- back through RCS, CVS, and P4. These places have long dealt with large groups of people collaborating on shared files that are constantly changing, forking, merging, etc.
I've worked quite a bit in the cgi and 3D graphics side of the industry and at least from what I've seen there the use of version control is lacking to say the least. The de-facto industry standard seems to be a directory full of files with names like scene_latest3_newest_old2.max.
Although it also seems to be more of a cultural issue. There are already pretty good tools from companies like Perforce and Alienbrain, the problem is to convince the artists that there is value in using them. Every time I've suggested it, there has been imitiate pushback and outright rejection from the artists. Even in the places I've seen that use Perforce, most artists seem to see checking in and out as a pointless chore, rather than a vital and helpful part of their workflow
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#78I hate to crash the party, but this is a very odd move for an awesome company and a service that I use and Github has always been against taking money. Actually, TPW has used some very harsh words criticizing startups that choose to take VC money. Now, Github raises 100 gazillion dollars? How the f*ck do they plan on spending that wisely? Sure, it's nice to have that sum in the bank. But, in all honesty, someone has…
The person who figures out how to get movie/music studios and the like to use version control is going to be very, very rich.
How are places like Pixar not already using version control? They do, but I think it is more integrated into their rendering infrastructure.
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#79Can't read the full article without an account. Try this: http://gigaom.com/2012/07/09/github-finally-raises-funding-1...
Or their own blog post: https://github.com/blog/1189-investing-in-github
Re: Github Raises $100 Million
#80I hate to crash the party, but this is a very odd move for an awesome company and a service that I use and Github has always been against taking money. Actually, TPW has used some very harsh words criticizing startups that choose to take VC money. Now, Github raises 100 gazillion dollars? How the f*ck do they plan on spending that wisely? Sure, it's nice to have that sum in the bank. But, in all honesty, someone has…
The person who figures out how to get movie/music studios and the like to use version control is going to be very, very rich.
The movie studios are not so open with software, but almost all of them do use open source software in some way, and most certainly nearly all have developers that use some varying amount of version control.