Github Raises $100 Million • Hacker News Board

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#161

Post by ricardobeat » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 1:41 AM UTC

jbarham wrote: post #124

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…

Your argument is contradictory. If they only need to beat those 2%, they are not under pressure to deliver spectacular returns.

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#162

Post by pmarca » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 1:43 AM UTC

yan wrote: post #93

danielharan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, "We wish we could hire them both" irks you? Sounds to me like a great heuristic for whether a person would be a good investor.

I realize it's a statement of praise, but I think Marc is legendary in the valley and an immensely successful investor/veteran of the business. Implying that he'd be in the running to become an employee at GitHub just felt off. Again, hard to put it into words.

I found it to be very flattering :-).

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#163

Post by ricardobeat » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 1:46 AM UTC

Achshar wrote: post #104

mibbitier wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably makes it easier for them to sell the company to bigco for $1bn.

After all instagram did something very similar, used VC investment to boost sale price. And it seemed to work very well. Can we expect some surprise news from github? I don't know, but that can sure be one valid reason for raising such money which they clearly don't need to work on the product in it's current form.

That would make AH look like complete fools, judging by the blog post. Not happening.

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#164

Post by pnathan » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 1:46 AM UTC

lnguyen wrote: post #106

pnathan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

enterprise sales are radically different than open source evangelism, b2c sales, and small biz sales. The difference is (literally and metaphorically) there is are suits involved. A few key thoughts which are likely to apply: - Per-customer customizations - $100K+ per sale per customer - 3 month to 3 year sales cycles - Usable on Windows XP and IE6 (most likely). - Certifications/audits (e.g., ISO9001). I can easily…

The product market for enterprise VCS/SCM is also quite a bit different. It's no longer enough to make it easy for developers; you need to be able to provide better access controls/security and start managing the code lifecycle. Github has quite a bit of work ahead of them to be on par with say IBM/Rational ClearCase/ClearQuest or CA Software Change Manager (aka Harvest). Definitely wish them luck.

What do you see as the Clearcase wins vs. github? (I can't think of any, sorry! :) )

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#165

Post by pmarca » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 1:50 AM UTC

wavephorm wrote: post #95

Why can't a company worth nearly a billion dollars just go public? There are thousands of public companies worth less than a billion. So why sell your soul to a VC who could push you into a situation that could make you implode, rather than raise money on an open market and give up less control?

That wasn't really how the Github guys were thinking about their choices, but I'll answer the question as asked...

By raising this round privately instead of going public now, they (a) get a financing partner (us) that completely understands what they're about, wants them to realize their vision, will do anything we can to help them get there, and is in the investment for the long run (10+ years), while (b) avoiding all the pressures and issues that come from being public, which are substantial in the modern era.

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#166

Post by andyfleming » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 2:01 AM UTC

My suspicion is they are going to be putting a lot of effort towards continuing to develop the GUI, for the lack of a better term, for git. IMO, that's what has helped them be successful in the first place. Git is complex and a bit unfriendly at times. They have made it more accessible and it sounds as though their hope is to increase overall engagement in git and version/source management tools.

Who knows, they could be working on their own flavor of git.

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#167

Post by Achshar » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 2:03 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #163

Achshar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all instagram did something very similar, used VC investment to boost sale price. And it seemed to work very well. Can we expect some surprise news from github? I don't know, but that can sure be one valid reason for raising such money which they clearly don't need to work on the product in it's current form.

That would make AH look like complete fools, judging by the blog post. Not happening.

Why would they look like fools? Investors got 2X in a couple of weeks in insagram's case IIRC.

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#168

Post by lnguyen » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 2:03 AM UTC

pnathan wrote: post #164

lnguyen wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The product market for enterprise VCS/SCM is also quite a bit different. It's no longer enough to make it easy for developers; you need to be able to provide better access controls/security and start managing the code lifecycle. Github has quite a bit of work ahead of them to be on par with say IBM/Rational ClearCase/ClearQuest or CA Software Change Manager (aka Harvest). Definitely wish them luck.

What do you see as the Clearcase wins vs. github? (I can't think of any, sorry! :) )

I'll readily admit that the core of ClearCase leaves much to be desired from a technology, administration and user perspective. Especially in comparison to git. But that's the difference a few decades of progress can make.

But what's built on top of it are definite wins in comparison to git and Github: UCM and lifecycle integration with ClearQuest.

Most developers don't know how/when to branch. UCM at least sets up a structure and process for that. There's also enough out-of-the-box security to control access to everything that most enterprises would care about. This is supported, documented, etc.

Managing an application's lifecycle is probably far more important in a large organization than most people experience in a small project or startup. Integration with ClearQuest allows everything to be tracked.

Since all of this are essentially "add-ons" to a core versioning tool, there's nothing to say something similar can't be done with git/by Github. It's just that they're not available _now_.

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#169

Post by yan » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 2:05 AM UTC

pmarca wrote: post #162

yan wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize it's a statement of praise, but I think Marc is legendary in the valley and an immensely successful investor/veteran of the business. Implying that he'd be in the running to become an employee at GitHub just felt off. Again, hard to put it into words.

I found it to be very flattering :-).

Well then, I'm going to go be quiet elsewhere now.

(Hi Marc!)

Re: Github Raises $100 Million

#170

Post by kyrra » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 2:11 AM UTC

pnathan wrote: post #164

lnguyen wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The product market for enterprise VCS/SCM is also quite a bit different. It's no longer enough to make it easy for developers; you need to be able to provide better access controls/security and start managing the code lifecycle. Github has quite a bit of work ahead of them to be on par with say IBM/Rational ClearCase/ClearQuest or CA Software Change Manager (aka Harvest). Definitely wish them luck.

What do you see as the Clearcase wins vs. github? (I can't think of any, sorry! :) )

customization, process definition, support, control.

While I don't like Clearcase/clearquest, large companies like them because it allows them to define their own rigid ideas of control within their company. Large companies have a team of people who's job it is to create, manage, and train to that process. Tools like clearcase allow them to create these custom workflows and processes within the company in such a way that they must be follow.

this allow for some pretty complex controls on who can do what, what signoffs must happen for certain code commits, and such.

Git and Github do not offer that fine-grain control that managers of large organizations like. So until you see that type of functionality, don't expect to see Lockheed Martin deploy Github throughout their company.