81–90 of 230 posts
However a burn rate of 25m$/year — The VC wants 100 times the return of his investment. That's imho not doable with the current "monolitic" github business model.
I have to imagine that a chunk of that money is to provide liquidity to the founders, which they very much deserve. I don't really see how this is a bad thing. They were very much profitable, and were likely able to dictate the terms of the deal. Also, the money came from one of the most, if not THE most, reputable and respected VC firms.
The founders (probably) achieve some liquidity, the company gets to expand up and out in the market, with the guidance of some of the most experienced investors in the business, the customers get see more resources put towards what is now a very large product, and the investors get to ride the wave that I think will see GitHub reach a few billion dollars valuation.
I 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.
http://www.perforce.com/sites/default/files/storageforfilmas...
I 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…
Maybe they're building their own data center? Or really trying to expand into the enterprise market by going up head to head with Atlassian (expanding their issues and Wiki tools to complete separate packages). All speculation, of course.
I don't have any experience in enterprise sales. But, from what I know, enterprise isn't a market that the best product always wins. Yes, Github definitely has one of the best products out there. But, they definitely don't have the required experience to push their enterprise product to the market(look at the developers heavy team). The VC will definitely help in this case.
Now, look at another similar product in the market, Atlassion, which raised about 60 millions almost two years ago from Accel. That was also after years of bootstrapping from Atlassian itself. 2 years ago, the funding market was definitely not as good as the funding market today. Yet, Atlassian managed to raise 60 millions. So, the 100 millions Github raised today seems reasonable to me.
I'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 t…
As some communities, e.g. the Ruby community, is approx. based 99% on github, I fully understand and have a strange feeling myself. Time will tell if TPW and AH can work together and make an even bigger success.
I 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider the audience of the WSJ. I doubt Github is known to more than 5% of the WJS audience.
I'd guess that less than 5% of programmers knows github and/or git.
GitHub has 1,784,455 members. That alone is probably 5% of coders.
There are still many millions more people out there that have heard of GitHub, or downloaded code via GitHub, but don't have an account.