GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button • Hacker News Board

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#291

Post by dbingham » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 1:34 PM UTC

pfortuny wrote: post #289

dbingham wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you could argue that, and maybe Adam Smith was at the time. It's been a long time since I've read him, I'd have to go back and re-read it to decide to what degree I think he's making that argument. But that is not how most people understand self interest in an economic context and that is not how Adam Smith is mostly wielded today (see the post I'm responding to for an example). Most people understand "self int…

Of course: that is why Adam Smith speaks of people and not corporations. And I was speaking of people as well. Corporations are a different subject matter.

Fair enough. However, the context of this discussion -- and the modern economic context -- is made up primarily of corporate actors.

Which is one more reason why the application of Adam's philosophy doesn't make sense.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#292

Post by pmontra » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 1:37 PM UTC

kawsper wrote: post #266

pmontra wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some customers with repositories on Bitbucket. The reason is the pricing model for private projects. On Bitbucket you pay for developer and have infinite private projects. On GitHub is you pay for private projects and have infinite developers. If one company has many projects and few developers, Bitbucket is cheaper. I also have small customers who don't even know what a repository is. I self host with gitolit…

> On GitHub is you pay for private projects and have infinite developers. That is the legacy pricing model. Their new pricing model matches Bitbucket: https://github.com/pricing

Thanks, I didn't notice and it happened two years ago.

Still, with Bitbucket we can have unlimited private repositories for free up to 5 users, then it's $2 per user. With GitHub unlimited private repository come at $7 per month, then it's $5 per month for the first 5 users and $9 for the others.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#293

Post by dbingham » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

abduhl wrote: post #276

dbingham wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got it backwards. They are able to make a living happily doing their craft because there is a portion of the market that values their craft. They didn't choose their craft because they recognized their was a market for it. They chose their craft out of love of the craftsmanship. Arguments like this fundamentally misunderstand human psychology. And this is why the economic model of the "rational man" is fundame…

Lol this post shows an amazing savior complex. These poor altruistic artists just want to work for meagre amounts and no profit but thankfully heroes like you appreciate their craft and are unwilling to let them peddle their wares for anything lower than a healthy profit margin.

It has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with the fact that most people are not driven by the hoarding of wealth. Most people recognize the need to make a profit because they need to survive and support their families, but it is not their primary motivator. If it were, there'd be millions more entrepreneurs than there are, and few people willing to work endless factory or desk jobs. For most people, they are primarily motivated to do things they enjoy doing. For the sorts of crafts people I'm talking about, those things are engaging in their craft.

Altruism has nothing to do with it. Although, psychological research has shown that economics has it wrong: most people are basically altruistic, not basically selfish. It's how we can be such a social species. But that's a different discussion for another time.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#294

Post by cabalamat » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

mdpopescu wrote: post #200

notveryrational wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing where they are going to gas all the developers or something. Nope. It's more about priorities and intentions. Microsoft doesn't care about the developers. It cares about having the dominant platform. It recognizes that its image makes that difficult. The GitHub acquisition: Microsoft didn't suddenly get more beautiful. It put on a mask. It will kill GitHub - or at least let it flounder - if that's what's best…

> Microsoft doesn't care about the developers. It cares about having the dominant platform. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Adam Smith.) I don't trust benevolent people. I trust self-interest. I don't need to offer my undying allegiance to Microsoft - I can like them as long as they do things that benefi…

The butcher, the brewer and the baker have no ability to alter my biochemistry so I can't consumer other people's meat, beer and bread. So I am unafraid that they will harm me with vendor lock-in.

Microsoft, on the other hand...

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#295

Post by dbingham » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #286

dbingham wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust self interest. Especially not in my butcher, brewer, or baker. Pure self interest gets you McDonalds, Bud Light, and Debi cakes. I consume exactly none of those things and have no desire to consume any of those things. They taste terrible, are bad for me, and the companies themselves are generally bad for their communities and the world. A good butcher, brewer, or baker is driven by craft first - care f…

I've met a large number of great craftsmen who I would rate trustworthy and who are driven first by craftsmanship and for whom self-interest is a secondary interest. I'm privileged to work at a great shop with some 20 other people for whom profit is just a small part of the goal. We call fiscal health "oxygen": It's something we need, but if it's present it should be allowed to fade from the forefront of our minds, i…

Agreed. And we're suffering all kinds of negative consequences from this system. I think one of the great economic questions facing our generation is "How can we keep the efficiencies of scale we've gained while reintroducing the craftman's motivations and ethics that have been lost?"

I have some ideas towards that direction, but make no claims on a definitive answer.

Worker cooperatives seem promising, since they change the average worker from "grunt" to "owner / director". It changes the incentive structure around what gets communicated and how as a company scales. Worker cooperatives also change the incentives around growth itself -- disincentivising growth beyond a certain point because each new worker waters down the voice and control of the existing ones.

AI driven automation and robotics, in a context of worker cooperatives, presents the possibility of keeping our production efficiencies (that used to require huge scales) while maintaining small organization sizes. We're not there yet, but it seems like we're not too far off.

I think reconfiguring the economy around these two ideas, presents the possibility of a good answer to the question posed above. And has lots of extra benefits beside (like building democracy into our economic system and not just our political system, and creating a system that more equitably distributes wealth by nature).

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#296

Post by hobofan » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 2:02 PM UTC

quietbritishjim wrote: post #185

hobofan wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If the portfolio company wants to be acquired by Google, then taking the network they get via GV certainly makes that route easier for them. If the portfolio company decides if acquisition by another tech giant is the better route, they are free to do that and GV won't sabotage that deal. AFAIK there have been GV exits to all of the big Google competitiors.

> Google acquiring Gitlab is very inevitable This means "Google is going to acquire GitLab". > If the portfolio company decides if acquisition by another tech giant is the better route, they are free to do that and GV won't sabotage that deal. To me, this reads as "Google might not acquire GitLab".

Yeah, wow had a brainfart their. I thought about "unavoidable" every time I wrote inevitable.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#297

Post by wildmusings » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 2:04 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #293

abduhl wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol this post shows an amazing savior complex. These poor altruistic artists just want to work for meagre amounts and no profit but thankfully heroes like you appreciate their craft and are unwilling to let them peddle their wares for anything lower than a healthy profit margin.

It has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with the fact that most people are not driven by the hoarding of wealth. Most people recognize the need to make a profit because they need to survive and support their families, but it is not their primary motivator. If it were, there'd be millions more entrepreneurs than there are, and few people willing to work endless factory or desk jobs. For most people, th…

That’s totally backwards. Most people do their jobs because it pays the bills. Most people don’t have careers, with some glorious internal narrative in which they’re the protagonist. They have jobs. If they’re lucky or good spirited, they’ll find satisfaction or even enjoyment in their work. But they work because it gives them the means to get what they need and do at least some of what they really want to do.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#298

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 2:04 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #81

beefsack wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually had exactly the same experience with my Pebble. I got it out of casual nerdy interest and was sure I'd use it for a couple of months and then pack it away. Having notifications and basic functionality on your wrist is surprisingly useful though, and I used that watch until it broke (after Pebble went under unfortunately). I've got a Ticwatch E on it's way as a replacement.

Pebble was nice - had one but its uncanny how similar the Palm Treo analogy goes - I loved my Treo till I got my iPhone. I loved my Pebble till I got my Apple watch. Stuff the old ones do better (even today) but the Apple replacements are all that + constant years of OS upgrades and a stronger app ecosystem.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#299

Post by quietbritishjim » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 2:10 PM UTC

hobofan wrote: post #296

quietbritishjim wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google acquiring Gitlab is very inevitable This means "Google is going to acquire GitLab". > If the portfolio company decides if acquisition by another tech giant is the better route, they are free to do that and GV won't sabotage that deal. To me, this reads as "Google might not acquire GitLab".

Yeah, wow had a brainfart their. I thought about "unavoidable" every time I wrote inevitable.

"Google acquiring Gitlab is very unavoidable" would also mean that Google IS going to acquire GitLab!

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#300

Post by hobofan » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 2:14 PM UTC

quietbritishjim wrote: post #299

hobofan wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, wow had a brainfart their. I thought about "unavoidable" every time I wrote inevitable.

"Google acquiring Gitlab is very unavoidable" would also mean that Google IS going to acquire GitLab!

Yeah... I think I should get off HN for the day :D