Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab S-1

sec.gov

61–70 of 295 posts

Re: Gitlab S-1

#61

I haven't personally had a compelling enough reason to move from GitHub to GitLab, so I mostly just use it to mirror a couple of my repos there in case people prefer to browse various open source projects via GitLab. Regardless, I think competition in the space is a great thing. GitLab has come a long way and there are certain things I really like about the company. For example, I love how they tend to do everything…

Mind to share a "quick link" to the mentioned documents?

Re: Gitlab S-1

#62

> We have been a 100% remote workforce since inception and, as of July 31, 2021, had approximately 1,350 team members in over 65 countries. Operating remotely allows us access to a global talent pool that enables us to hire talented team members, regardless of location, providing a strong competitive advantage. Will be interesting to see how many publicly traded companies are fully remote in 5, 10, 15 years. Especial…

And famously they're leaders on the location-based pay side of the remote pay argument (as opposed to the "we pay everyone based on the value they bring" side): https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...

Re: Gitlab S-1

#63
post #36

I realize plenty of tech companies IPO and aren’t profitable. But it seems scary to be losing more money than what you generated in total revenues. REVENUE: 2021: $152m (loss of $192m) 2020: $81m (loss of $130m) EDIT: reworded for clarity.

It depends on why they're losing money.

Are they losing money on each customer per year? Are they spending a ton on sales that they expect to earn back over a decade per customer plus, but with a huge initial cost.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#64
I m in one of the companies they quoted as case study. The lies are so horrible I hesitate to do something: they fucked us completely replacing a wonderful github/teamcity combo, it crashes all the time, features are so amateurish (vs teamcity especially) that we're struggling just to do basic things.

I dont know what to do, but public investors should stay away: the product is not ready for people to pay for it. It's years behind the competition.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#65
post #59

Was wondering why their FY21 costs where much higher than first half of this year, this probably explains it: > Stock-based compensation expense for fiscal 2020 and 2021, and six months ended July 31, 2021 includes $32.7 million, $103.8 million, and $0.3 million, respectively, of compensation expense related to secondary stock sales described in Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in t…

Stock based compensation is compensation at the expense of current shareholders. It’s not free money.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#66
post #48

So GitLab is advertising that it's the one place to do the entire software development lifecycle. Are there any big shops that have converted to 100% (or almost 100%) GitLab? Out of the six big names they list on their website, the only one that they have a case study for is Thomson Reuters, and they used Jenkins for CI (and it's from 2017, so a lot of this other functionality wasn't built yet). It's just a somewhat…

I've been using ADO for the past year or two and I don't hate it. While it absolutely lacks features, and most ADO things have relatively tough to use UIs, it _is_ extremely fast compared to GitHub and has some amazing UI designs for a couple things (especially reviewing large PRs).

Although from what I heard they're porting the good parts into GitHub and deprecating/putting into maintenance mode ADO soon.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#67

Sorry for off-topic but notice how long this page is and yet how fast it loads. Why is it so hard to pull off elsewhere on the Web.

Ironically, the 5-6 images on the page are really poorly optimized, making the total payload of the page probably 3-4 times as big as it could be.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#68

> We have been a 100% remote workforce since inception and, as of July 31, 2021, had approximately 1,350 team members in over 65 countries. Operating remotely allows us access to a global talent pool that enables us to hire talented team members, regardless of location, providing a strong competitive advantage. Will be interesting to see how many publicly traded companies are fully remote in 5, 10, 15 years. Especial…

A lot of those companies are fully remote*

*Timezones and working locations restricted.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#69

> We have been a 100% remote workforce since inception and, as of July 31, 2021, had approximately 1,350 team members in over 65 countries. Operating remotely allows us access to a global talent pool that enables us to hire talented team members, regardless of location, providing a strong competitive advantage. Will be interesting to see how many publicly traded companies are fully remote in 5, 10, 15 years. Especial…

And famously they're leaders on the location-based pay side of the remote pay argument (as opposed to the "we pay everyone based on the value they bring" side): https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...

Interesting, thanks for the link.

Median salary seems to be $170k according to Levels.fyi -> https://www.levels.fyi/company/GitLab/salaries/Software-Engi...

Re: Gitlab S-1

#70
post #49
post #36

I realize plenty of tech companies IPO and aren’t profitable. But it seems scary to be losing more money than what you generated in total revenues. REVENUE: 2021: $152m (loss of $192m) 2020: $81m (loss of $130m) EDIT: reworded for clarity.

Isn’t your second sentence just a truism on the first sentence? profit = revenue - costs

No, you're conflating "loss" (negative profit) with "cost". The first sentence acknowledges that plenty of tech companies IPO and are not profitable, so their revenue is below their costs. The second sentence is about losses (negative profit) exceeding revenue.

For a naive example, a company can have $1m in revenue and $1.1m in costs, therefore profit is negative 100,000 dollars - the company is unprofitable. However, they are not losing more money ($100,000) then they are bringing in ($1,000,000 is greater than $100,000) - though they are spending more money ($1.1m) then they are bringing in. This would not be a concerning amount of loss, many companies are deliberately outspending current revenue in order to increase future revenue/growth/market share, but could become profitable if they wanted to.

In this case, the person you replied to is remarking that the losses/negative profit ($192m, $130m) are greater than the revenue ($152m, $81m). This is a concerning sign, as the path to profitability is much further away.

Post reply on HN