4 ms·

Sounds like you've got an axe to grind. > I had my issues with Github, but at least they had built a business around a dev tool ... That's a strange claim giv

by Jedd 8y ago

Sounds like you've got an axe to grind. > I had my issues with Github, but at least they had built a business around a dev tool ... That's a strange claim given that in the current top story - of Microsoft buying Github - the following claim is made: "The acquisition provides a way forward for San Francisco-based GitHub, which has been trying for nine months to find a new CEO and has yet to make a profit from its popular service ..." Perhaps it comes down to your definition -- can something be non-profitable for a decade and still be called a business?

paulie_a 8y ago
>can something be non-profitable for a decade and still be called a business Just ask Amazon
- mandeepj 8y ago
  > Just ask Amazon Maybe, we should ask ourselves first if it's a fair comparison. Amazon kept investing the profits into themselves. I don't think that is the case with Github though
  - nappy 8y ago
    Free cash flow is king
  - rmc 8y ago
    Excactly, Amazon could have been profitable
irq11 8y ago
The only “axe” I have to grind is the one I clearly stated: Gitlab is salting the earth for dev tools. You can’t build a business competing with someone who is using VC money to give away their product. This is all going to end badly when the music stops. ”can something be non-profitable for a decade and still be called a business?” This is such a bizarre talking point...do you honestly believe that Gitlab is a better business? Their model is “just like Github, but with even more stuff given away for free!” And let’s not forget that Github has to compete with Gitlab cannibalizing the low end of the market. I’m sure that hurts margins. Someone has to pay those Gitlab engineers who are writing the bulk of the code. At the very least, as soon as the dumb money dries up, the velocity of development on Gitlab will drop like a rock. In the worst case, you’ll get an conflicted corporate hydra, like mysql.
- Jedd 8y ago
  I understand that you're claiming gitlab is salting the earth, but still don't understand why / how. You write: > You can’t build a business competing with someone who is using VC money to give away their product. This is delightfully worded, given it could apply to both github and gitlab. Remembering that github started in 2008, while gitlab.com started four years later (first commit to their codebase was 2011). Github is running on $350m of VC funding. In response to my question 'can you call a 10yo company that still isn't profitable, a "business"?', you avoided the question, called the matter bizarre, and tried to distract from the question by claiming github is a _better_ business. Your claim that github has 'built a business and .. gave back generously' is also weird in that gitlab has released the source to their core product, but github hasn't. This also speaks against your claim that you're more likely to be abandoned if you commit to gitlab than github. Finally, the idea that the 'low end of the market' is where all the money is does not match any other tech startup's experience, is belied by the pricing structure of both companies, and further invalidated by the fact that gitlab is not swimming in cash from their cornering of the frugal user segment.
  - dnomad 8y ago
    > Github is running on $350m of VC funding. Gitlab is also running on a bunch of VC money. > In response to my question 'can you call a 10yo company that still isn't profitable, a "business"?' Gitlab also likely runs at a loss. Gitlab has certainly never claimed to be profitable and some estimates are that as few as .1% of their customers pay for Gitlab. > I understand that you're claiming gitlab is salting the earth, but still don't understand why / how. It's pretty clear to me at least that neither Github nor Gitlab have sustainable business models. The OSS community is crazy to think that either business will continue to subsidize OSS development while losing millions of dollars a year. All of the anger against Github and the new "faith" in Gitlab is pure delusion. Both these companies subsidize OSS development while losing millions of dollars. This will go on until it stops. It certainly can't go on forever. Personally I suspect the absolutely best thing to happen to both Github and Gitlab would be being bought out by real companies that heavily depend upon OSS and, you know, actually make money. It came up before and now the chatter has started up again around Gitlab. I think it still makes a lot of sense for AWS to purchase Gitlab. There's a fundamental strategy alignment there (both Gitlab and Amazon aim to be a "one stop shop"), Gitlab offers the potential to lure a bunch of developers into the AWS platform with a free offering and, ultimately, Gitlab offers the same computational economics as other Amazon products because it is just another hosted product that requires a database. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see such a transaction in as little as 2-3 years.

by Jedd 8y ago

paulie_a 8y ago

>can something be non-profitable for a decade and still be called a business Just ask Amazon

mandeepj 8y ago
> Just ask Amazon Maybe, we should ask ourselves first if it's a fair comparison. Amazon kept investing the profits into themselves. I don't think that is the case with Github though
- nappy 8y ago
  Free cash flow is king
- rmc 8y ago
  Excactly, Amazon could have been profitable

irq11 8y ago

The only “axe” I have to grind is the one I clearly stated: Gitlab is salting the earth for dev tools. You can’t build a business competing with someone who is using VC money to give away their product. This is all going to end badly when the music stops. ”can something be non-profitable for a decade and still be called a business?” This is such a bizarre talking point...do you honestly believe that Gitlab is a better business? Their model is “just like Github, but with even more stuff given away for free!” And let’s not forget that Github has to compete with Gitlab cannibalizing the low end of the market. I’m sure that hurts margins. Someone has to pay those Gitlab engineers who are writing the bulk of the code. At the very least, as soon as the dumb money dries up, the velocity of development on Gitlab will drop like a rock. In the worst case, you’ll get an conflicted corporate hydra, like mysql.

Jedd 8y ago
I understand that you're claiming gitlab is salting the earth, but still don't understand why / how. You write: > You can’t build a business competing with someone who is using VC money to give away their product. This is delightfully worded, given it could apply to both github and gitlab. Remembering that github started in 2008, while gitlab.com started four years later (first commit to their codebase was 2011). Github is running on $350m of VC funding. In response to my question 'can you call a 10yo company that still isn't profitable, a "business"?', you avoided the question, called the matter bizarre, and tried to distract from the question by claiming github is a _better_ business. Your claim that github has 'built a business and .. gave back generously' is also weird in that gitlab has released the source to their core product, but github hasn't. This also speaks against your claim that you're more likely to be abandoned if you commit to gitlab than github. Finally, the idea that the 'low end of the market' is where all the money is does not match any other tech startup's experience, is belied by the pricing structure of both companies, and further invalidated by the fact that gitlab is not swimming in cash from their cornering of the frugal user segment.
- dnomad 8y ago
  > Github is running on $350m of VC funding. Gitlab is also running on a bunch of VC money. > In response to my question 'can you call a 10yo company that still isn't profitable, a "business"?' Gitlab also likely runs at a loss. Gitlab has certainly never claimed to be profitable and some estimates are that as few as .1% of their customers pay for Gitlab. > I understand that you're claiming gitlab is salting the earth, but still don't understand why / how. It's pretty clear to me at least that neither Github nor Gitlab have sustainable business models. The OSS community is crazy to think that either business will continue to subsidize OSS development while losing millions of dollars a year. All of the anger against Github and the new "faith" in Gitlab is pure delusion. Both these companies subsidize OSS development while losing millions of dollars. This will go on until it stops. It certainly can't go on forever. Personally I suspect the absolutely best thing to happen to both Github and Gitlab would be being bought out by real companies that heavily depend upon OSS and, you know, actually make money. It came up before and now the chatter has started up again around Gitlab. I think it still makes a lot of sense for AWS to purchase Gitlab. There's a fundamental strategy alignment there (both Gitlab and Amazon aim to be a "one stop shop"), Gitlab offers the potential to lure a bunch of developers into the AWS platform with a free offering and, ultimately, Gitlab offers the same computational economics as other Amazon products because it is just another hosted product that requires a database. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see such a transaction in as little as 2-3 years.