Live data from Hacker News

We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

blog.gitbutler.com

451–460 of 785 posts

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think describing them as friends is entirely correct. People give money to people they trust. And friends often are in that subset of people. But that's not a strict requirement.

They trust people who look and smell like them or the people they golf or drink with or are part of the same fraternity or tennis club.

I'm not sure what your point is. Of course people who see and observe others on a daily basis in the flesh can determine much better whether they are trustworthy or not. They sure as hell don't think some random person who has no credibility is trustworthy.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#453
I really, genuinely, do not want a replacement for git developed by a company that raised money to build it, since it will inevitably be a walled garden of one kind or another that enshittifies as it tries to make the money back. Git is fine and there is one thing no VC funded effort can get: freedom from the vampires.

Like all I see here is "We want to build a fence around git and then charge you to go through it." I mean this as kindly as I can mean it: no thank you.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#456

Why are investors still investing in SAAS products like this? I've heard some investors made rather blunt statements about such investments being a very hard sell to them at this point. Clearly somebody believes differently here. We have AI now. AI tools are pretty handy with Git. I've not manually resolved git conflicts in months now. That's more or less a solved problem for me. Mostly codex creates and manages pull…

It's obvious that GitButt wants to be bought by one of the AI providers so they can add it as a feature to their subscription.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is about a $17M funding round for GitButler. Which I assume has some revenue plan that you might qualify as SAAS. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There seems to be a bit of a trend that dev adjancent open source companies with not much monetization strategy are being bought off by AI giants. Most prominently Anthopic bought bun, OpenAI is buying Astral. So that may be the exit plan too. Not sure what the business logic is. Maybe they are mostly acquihire. Or the companies just have so much money to throw around they just spray it everywhere. Whatever the reaso…

[deleted]

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#459

I feel like I really need to learn how to raise money. For $17M, one could probably build a vacuum robot prototype that’ll also clean up all of the kids toys and sort LEGO bricks by colour and size. Parents worldwide would love it. But instead, we get a replacement for Git. And I didn’t even bother to click the link because I’m fine with how Git works. On the list of pain points in my life, “what comes after Git” has…

Not to mention the irony that they need $17M to try and recreate/improve what Linus built in a week.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#460

I continue to be amazed at American capital allocation. $17M for an idea to improve Git? For a fraction of that money Ukrainian housewives build anti-drone air defence systems in their garage that protect their country. For that kind of money you could build an apartment block to ease the housing shortage. You could invest in electricity resilience and build mini nuclear power plants or a small wind farm. Soviet capi…

The worst part about what I see here is the inequity or imbalance of what we're seeing about where money gets allocated, and the material effects of what that inequity brings about. It's not "I have a good idea and a great team" it's "I am X, or know Y" and... ugh.

There's gobs of amazing technology being built by people who just love to build, have great ideas, and huge talent (now exponentially compounded by LLM assistance, even) -- and 99% of it is ignored by people with $$ and none of them will be paid to work on these things -- let alone get funded to build a business around them -- and the reason isn't the inadequacy of the technology or "lack of a workable business plan": it's lack of social connections or pedigree.

And what this tells me is two things

1. there's a fundamentally sickness to the VC culture coming out of Silicon Valley and it's gotten worse not better with the new restraints in the post-ZIRP era. It's an echo chamber and a social circle, not a means for creating new profitable companies or good infrastructure, and it serves mainly just to feed a pipeline of acquisitions into much bigger fish rather than building tomorrow's new businesses or ideas. This is very different from 80s, 90s tech culture that I grew up in.

2. there's clearly a desperate need for more actual incubators or labs for actual technology, paying people to build "good stuff" independent of the vagaries of what VCs and their ivy league friends are able to pitch.

Frankly: The $$ out there in heavy circulation has been mostly corrosive, not helpful.

Post reply on HN