5 ms·
Hopefully it's just a negotiation tactic to get Google to buy them for more than their first offer.
by falcon620 8y ago
Hopefully it's just a negotiation tactic to get Google to buy them for more than their first offer.
- the_duke 8y agoGoogle is notorious for killing products too, though. For me, much of the same rationale would apply
- aphextron 8y ago>Google is notorious for killing products too, though. For me, much of the same rationale would apply Agreed. The best possible solution for making GitHub long term sustainable would be following the Mozilla model.
- dawnerd 8y agoI mean the other option is to just not sell and if money is a problem adjust pricing. I find their plans to be incredibly cheap for what they offer so they definitely could have room to grow in that regard.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sametmax 8y agoPlease no. I spent months to find strategies to limit my google product usage between mails, search, phone, calendar, contacts, maps, streaming, dns, adsense, cdn and analytics. It's a struggle. They are everywhere. I really hope they don't eat github too.
- danso 8y agoHas Google ever killed an acquisition or product of Github's scale? Most products that come to mind were niche things like iGoogle, or things that got deprecated/integrated into other products, e.g. Buzz, Wave, Picasa Google Reader is the product that seems to leave the most bitterness, but that too seems to have been relatively niche. Google killed Google Code in 2016 and moved much of their code base to Github. Maybe they'll rebrand Github back to "Code", but outright killing it seems unlikely.
- adventured 8y agoGithub is a niche product. Average people do not use it at all, its utility value is entirely niche. The average person will never know what Github is or what it does. It's useful to less than 2% of the US population, and less than 0.5% of the global population. They've killed / destroyed / butchered large acquisitions before, yes. Metaweb / Freebase cost them a reported $200-$300 million. Feedburner cost them $100 million. Slide.com cost them $228 million. Motorola was a $12 billion disaster. They might as well have killed it. DailyDeal cost them $114 million. Wildfire Interactive cost them $450 million. There are a couple dozen more in the $30m to $100m range.
- gsich 8y agoGoogle Reader
- s2g 8y agobut I don't want to leave github. Please no. I can't believe people are salivating over the idea of giving google more control over open source. Need to wake up to their style of evil I guess.
- bsg75 8y agoSee https://code.google.com/archive/ https://code.google.com/archive/
- urda 8y agoGoogle buying GitHub over Microsoft would actually be arguably worse for GitHub. If Google actually bought GitHub, I would be thinking twice about using it.
- mihaela 8y agoSame here. I don't use Google products, other than search.
- morganvachon 8y agoIf you want to get Google search results and not give them any personal info or create a search bubble, try startpage.com or ixquick.com (same company). They have built a privacy-focused search engine that rides on Google's results. I'm not affiliated, I just enjoy using it. If you don't trust Startpage you can try DuckDuckGo with a !g modifier, it will search Google (mostly) anonymously for you.
- pmontra 8y agoYou can use Google without logging in and with one of those browser addons that delete cookies when leaving a site.
- morganvachon 8y agoThey still create a search bubble based on your IP address and browser fingerprinting.
- cube2222 8y agoWell not with GDPR, no.
- sandov 8y agoAs far as I understand, the !g modifier doesn't search anonymously for you, it just redirects you to the google results page. It's useful when you know that ddg won't give you a result as good as google. You can also use the !sp flag, that redirects you to the startpage result page, without passing through google at any time, so that's what you should use instead of !g.