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

GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 416 posts

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#281

Post by hueving »

neya wrote: post #273
calcsam wrote: post #41

Both this piece, and most commenters, seem to miss the point about where Github's value comes from. It's not for being a social identity for programmers, or hosting open-source libraries. Those are worthy pursuits, but from a business perspective mostly serve as marketing. Github is basically Microsoft Word for programmers, and is an essential part of their workflow. Companies that need enterprise functionality aroun…

I agree, in fact, I don't understand why it's only valued at $2B, when a platform with no monetization model like Instagram was valued (and sold) at $1B.

instagram has a massive userbase. advertising potential is much larger.

people expect advertising on a social network. if github started doing that, developers would throw a shit-fit and bail

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#282

Post by hueving »

rmc wrote: post #279
hga wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly at minimum an insulting word, and in this context unambiguously so. In the context of, say, aerodynamics, its merely a word of art, e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aerodynamic+braking It'll be another word, perhaps in a more ambigious context, next time. Which brings up another point: I just don't want to have to worry about what will become this politically incorrect in the future when I'm…

> I just don't want to have to worry about what will become this politically incorrect in the future when I'm writing code and documentation. Then don't say/write bigotted things. Honestly, it's like asking people not to write spelling or grammar mistakes in documentation. It's not that hard.

tell that to airbus engineers. Perhaps you can boycott flying on every airbus because it says "retard" to the pilots on landing.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#283

Post by hueving »

scubadude wrote: post #202
geographomics wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a curious turn of events. Is "retard" particularly offensive in some cultures? I wasn't aware it had such inflammatory power behind it.

Think for a minute that you had an intellectual disability. Would you be comfortable with people casually using the word?

I'm not comfortable with people casually contributing to nodejs. Can I have that banned?

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#284

Post by andruby »

ghuntley wrote: post #243
calcsam wrote: post #41

Both this piece, and most commenters, seem to miss the point about where Github's value comes from. It's not for being a social identity for programmers, or hosting open-source libraries. Those are worthy pursuits, but from a business perspective mostly serve as marketing. Github is basically Microsoft Word for programmers, and is an essential part of their workflow. Companies that need enterprise functionality aroun…

Yep, you are right on point. Developers use the commodity version at home and want to use the same (awesome) tools in the workplace. Enterprise companies who wish to differentiate their hiring/talent pipeline recognise this and consider it a commercial advantage. Additionally these same enterprises have strict IP policies which prevent the IP from being hosted in the cloud. Win Win. The enterprise product VMware/Xen/…

Nope, the enterprise version is _not_ the exact same ruby/chef codebase. See for example this blogpost [1] where they announce LDAP sync. New features are often released on the public Github before they are included into a new github enterprise release.

That being said, the enterprise version is very close to the public version. They are probably branches of the same repositories.

[1] https://github.com/blog/category/enterprise

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#285

Post by andruby »

hermanmerman wrote: post #4
Trufa wrote: post #2

Github seems to be a pretty good or "safe" investment. Developers have already entrusted them with something as precious as their code itself. They also have pretty clear pathways for being profitable with private repos and so on, I'm not that surprised they are getting a lot of funding.

Well many companies are profitable (actually, it's the only prerequisite to stay alive). And arguably, Github isn't profitable enough to fuel its own growth, or they wouldn't need to take $250m from investors in exchange of shares. The question is: is it worth 2 billion dollars? As a developer my guts say yes, but I have no idea what their numbers look like...

Liquidity for the founders, early employees and previous investors can also be a reason to have another funding round.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#287

Post by discodave »

hermanmerman wrote: post #42
blizkreeg wrote: post #34

What would the exit strategy for a company like Github be? Get acquired by a big co like say, Google or IPO? An IPO and the accompanying scrutiny of a public company sounds like an unlikely strategy for a Github. Thoughts?

Google naturally comes to mind. Facebook / Parse, also. Amazon Web Services. Actually any company in this space (that is worth more than $20bn). Why do you say an IPO is unlikely? I don't see why the public markets would be wary: Github is IaaS done right, has clear ways to make money and grow on its current offering, and can very well come up with innovations adjacent to its core services.

AWS already launched a competitor called CodeCommit.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#288

Post by kriro »

Apart from being really easy to use and taking some pain out of git (arguable since we're talking about developers but could be worth more if they branch out to authors etc.) the major value of GitHub is the brand name.

It's a tool based network effects grab of sorts which is why the social components of GitHub are very important (imo). However I'm not sure the network effect is as big as it needs to be. Theoretically it's not that hard to migrate the entire network (-the revenue generating parts but it's the OS stuff that generates the network effect).

I'm not entirely sold that the brand is strong enough and can't be overtaken by competition. So far they seem to have a friendly relationship with GitLab et al. but it will be interesting to see how they'll handle those in the future. My guess it they'll try to acquire whoever they perceive to be the biggest fish.

That being said, the valuation seems acceptable to me given the current standing of GH. While the switching cost is low in monetary terms (and technically not hard) if you compare it to other brands where the switching cost is low in monetary terms like Coke vs. Pepsi the valuation makes more sense. I'd also argue that developers tend to not switch around wildly as long as the tool is perceived to do it's job well (which GH does).

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#289

Post by okasaki »

s73v3r wrote: post #245
saryant wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That requires people to understand context and nuance. We live in a world where a guy wants to ban Mel Brooks' The Producers because he doesn't realize it's a satire of Hitler, not an homage. Lots of people don't or won't appreciate context.

And generally people who don't understand context are laughed off the stage and not taken seriously.

Apparently not on github, however.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#290

Post by hueving »

serve_yay wrote: post #103
calcsam wrote: post #41

Both this piece, and most commenters, seem to miss the point about where Github's value comes from. It's not for being a social identity for programmers, or hosting open-source libraries. Those are worthy pursuits, but from a business perspective mostly serve as marketing. Github is basically Microsoft Word for programmers, and is an essential part of their workflow. Companies that need enterprise functionality aroun…

It's kind of crazy to me that its value even needs to be argued for. But then again, I use it every single day.

and how much money do you give them? Also, how painful would it be for you to switch to a different company (e.g. bitbucket)?
Post reply on HN