17 ms·

> If they continue to grow which seems to be the case, they will be break-even long before they run out of money What are you basing that on? The article says

by sorbits 10y ago

> If they continue to grow which seems to be the case, they will be break-even long before they run out of money What are you basing that on? The article says that in 2015 they had revenue of $95 million and lost $27 million. For the first 3 quarters of 2016 the article says they “surpassed last year’s revenue […] with $98 million”, but also that they lost $66 million in that same period. So while revenue doubled, the loss more than doubled, which does not look like they are on the path to break even. Of course there are many unknowns, but going by the numbers in the article alone, it does not look like a slam dunk.

kpil 10y ago
As an anecdote, I was called into a meeting with the CTO of a fairly large European bank, and a sales guy from GitHub a couple of month ago. I got the feeling that they are selling rather aggressively right now.
- Turbots 10y ago
  I got a sales rep from Github coming in at a client in January. Got any pointers?
moritzplassnig 10y ago
It's a bit tricky because the Bloomberg article states different numbers. It's unclear what they mean with revenue (ARR? Recognized Revenue?). But, let's take some of those numbers: $25M in Sep'14 (subscription revenue annualized => ARR), $95M in Sep'16 ("revenue" - let's assume it's ARR; recognized revenue would be even better) - that's very impressive growth. If that continues slowly, let's say they went from $25M to $70M, then growth slowed and they grew to $95M and can get to $120M by the end of next year and grow from there - that's a lot of additional revenue to offset the burn. Burning $88M per year ($66M in 9 months) after getting $250M from investors + probably a large credit line - even if they don't grow at all, don't reduce cost, that's cash for 3 years. If they reduce their costs (let's say by $15M), make $25M more in revenue, then it's a $40M lower burn ($48M), and they would still have plenty of the $250M in the bank (+ credit line + what they had before they raised the round). I'm not saying it's easy or that they are doing phenomenally well. I'm just saying that they can get it under control relatively easily compared to other companies that have high burn rates.

by sorbits 10y ago

kpil 10y ago

As an anecdote, I was called into a meeting with the CTO of a fairly large European bank, and a sales guy from GitHub a couple of month ago. I got the feeling that they are selling rather aggressively right now.

Turbots 10y ago
I got a sales rep from Github coming in at a client in January. Got any pointers?

moritzplassnig 10y ago

It's a bit tricky because the Bloomberg article states different numbers. It's unclear what they mean with revenue (ARR? Recognized Revenue?). But, let's take some of those numbers: $25M in Sep'14 (subscription revenue annualized => ARR), $95M in Sep'16 ("revenue" - let's assume it's ARR; recognized revenue would be even better) - that's very impressive growth. If that continues slowly, let's say they went from $25M to $70M, then growth slowed and they grew to $95M and can get to $120M by the end of next year and grow from there - that's a lot of additional revenue to offset the burn. Burning $88M per year ($66M in 9 months) after getting $250M from investors + probably a large credit line - even if they don't grow at all, don't reduce cost, that's cash for 3 years. If they reduce their costs (let's say by $15M), make $25M more in revenue, then it's a $40M lower burn ($48M), and they would still have plenty of the $250M in the bank (+ credit line + what they had before they raised the round). I'm not saying it's easy or that they are doing phenomenally well. I'm just saying that they can get it under control relatively easily compared to other companies that have high burn rates.