151–160 of 230 posts
I can't help but think that this investment marks the Pets.com point in this investment cycle. GitHub is essentially a web interface to a single open-source DVCS. The switching costs to using another DVCS such as Mercurial (which I personally prefer) or another Git hosting provider are minimal. There are no barriers to entry since Git is and always will be free. There are very few network effect benefits to using Git…
So much negativity here regarding the capital announcement. Github got to where it is now from now investment and you want to know the reason why they accepted such a large amount of capital (it's rather simple), Github are wanting to infiltrate the corporate sector because that's where the money is. Lets be honest the $10 per month I pay for my Github account isn't making any difference, a corporation paying $1000 p…
> "a good sign Github is never going anywhere." Right. Because we've never seen a company take a huge VC investment then disappear.
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…
Probably makes it easier for them to sell the company to bigco for $1bn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably makes it easier for them to sell the company to bigco for $1bn.
Which BigCos would be in the running? MSFT, IBM, GOOG? Anyone else on the list?
Whether they could make a return on it would be another thing though.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I have to imagine that a chunk of that money is to provide liquidity to the founders That helps explain why the founders sold the equity, but not why the VCs bought it.
Really ? Company with a proven modal, proven team, proven management and a massive growth opportunity (company hosted Github).
(I considered deleting my comment, but my hand was stayed by its having gotten an upvote.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet nobody here as anything bad to say about the exceptional skills of the github team. However such a huge investment may force them to "overscale" in order to be able to reach the expected return (by the VC). 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 succ…
>However such a huge investment may force them to "overscale" in order to be able to reach the expected return (by the VC). But how can we know that's even an issue? There are a hundred hypotheticals here (both positive and negative), and focusing on the ones that would only be the case were Andreessen Horowitz & GitHub unwise companies seems unnecessarily negative. Now, if there were reason to think any of them, tha…
I can't help but think that this investment marks the Pets.com point in this investment cycle. GitHub is essentially a web interface to a single open-source DVCS. The switching costs to using another DVCS such as Mercurial (which I personally prefer) or another Git hosting provider are minimal. There are no barriers to entry since Git is and always will be free. There are very few network effect benefits to using Git…