6 ms·

From the standpoint of an end user (which is all of the people complaining about Microsoft acquiring Github) VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the d

From the standpoint of an end user (which is all of the people complaining about Microsoft acquiring Github) VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their investment is what causes the acquisitions which change the service in ways that I (the end user) do not like. Not saying they're right or wrong (I think at the very least it's a limited point of view) but that's the argument being made.

jasode 8y ago
>VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their [the VCs] investment You're repeating the same "outsourcing of blame" to VCs that I was trying to short circuit. VCs as an abstraction are a convenient target but that doesn't mean they are the correct target. The founders of Github such as Chris Wanstrath, Tom Preston-Werner, et al have agency and autonomy. Why are they specifically not included in our analysis? In other words, why aren't we saying this: >CW & TPW's desire for VC money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their request for VC investment It seems wrong that analysis, blame, and frustration seems to gravitate towards VCs and terminates only at the VCs -- instead of the founders who willingly asked the VCs for the money. Yes, DHH is against VC money. But maybe CW and TPW don't think about Github exactly the same way as DHH thinks about Basecamp.
- ghaff 8y ago
  VCs are a convenient abstract bogeyman. Yes, VCs do tend to encourage a grow big or go home mentality but it is, as you say, the founders who wanted that sort of investment. It's also the case that, as soon as someone here suggests that a startup doesn't need to operate in that manner, someone--as certainly as the sun will rise in the east--will post Paul Graham's startup definition and argue that you're not a real startup without a growth-first mentality.
- myWindoonn 8y ago
  You're super-close. Money is the "bad guy". It might not appear to have agency or autonomy, but that is because humans are not good at perceiving intangible power structures. In other words, why aren't we saying this: >Money is the bad guy, because its presence, uneven distribution, cult of worshipers, fungibility, and inherent ties to social power structures are unhealthy influences on the founders of Github
  - jchrisa 8y ago
    Beyond money, it's the logic of commoditization that is the bad guy.
  - pm90 8y ago
    I feel like I should post Francisco D'Anconia's Money speech here.... Money by itself isn't the "bad guy"; its a store of value. Like Technology it can be used for good or bad. We have structured our society to reward greed with unbelievable wealth. Like how can someone spend billions of dollars of their wealth? What is the need for someone to own all that wealth? And yet we all take that as given and aspire to it.
rwallace 8y ago
Okay, but anyone making that argument should also consider that the existence of VCs and their money may well have been part of the reasoning that led the founders to create the service in the first place. Look at the almost total absence of such useful or interesting services created in places that don't have VCs.
Retric 8y ago
Users love the VC's money. Uber handed out multiple billions of dollars subsidizing both riders and drivers from these massive investments, but even smaller investments often mean the same things. From photo sharing to local delivery most of these services are beloved in large part because they don't need to be directly profitable.
- beauzero 8y ago
  ...yet. "Directly or indirectly profitable" eventually happens.
megaman22 8y ago
I can't think of anybody that would be better to acquire GitHub, if it had to be sold off. At least Microsoft is heavily invested in developer tools, and making them better all the time.

jasode 8y ago

>VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their [the VCs] investment You're repeating the same "outsourcing of blame" to VCs that I was trying to short circuit. VCs as an abstraction are a convenient target but that doesn't mean they are the correct target. The founders of Github such as Chris Wanstrath, Tom Preston-Werner, et al have agency and autonomy. Why are they specifically not included in our analysis? In other words, why aren't we saying this: >CW & TPW's desire for VC money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their request for VC investment It seems wrong that analysis, blame, and frustration seems to gravitate towards VCs and terminates only at the VCs -- instead of the founders who willingly asked the VCs for the money. Yes, DHH is against VC money. But maybe CW and TPW don't think about Github exactly the same way as DHH thinks about Basecamp.

ghaff 8y ago
VCs are a convenient abstract bogeyman. Yes, VCs do tend to encourage a grow big or go home mentality but it is, as you say, the founders who wanted that sort of investment. It's also the case that, as soon as someone here suggests that a startup doesn't need to operate in that manner, someone--as certainly as the sun will rise in the east--will post Paul Graham's startup definition and argue that you're not a real startup without a growth-first mentality.
myWindoonn 8y ago
You're super-close. Money is the "bad guy". It might not appear to have agency or autonomy, but that is because humans are not good at perceiving intangible power structures. In other words, why aren't we saying this: >Money is the bad guy, because its presence, uneven distribution, cult of worshipers, fungibility, and inherent ties to social power structures are unhealthy influences on the founders of Github
- jchrisa 8y ago
  Beyond money, it's the logic of commoditization that is the bad guy.
- pm90 8y ago
  I feel like I should post Francisco D'Anconia's Money speech here.... Money by itself isn't the "bad guy"; its a store of value. Like Technology it can be used for good or bad. We have structured our society to reward greed with unbelievable wealth. Like how can someone spend billions of dollars of their wealth? What is the need for someone to own all that wealth? And yet we all take that as given and aspire to it.

rwallace 8y ago

Okay, but anyone making that argument should also consider that the existence of VCs and their money may well have been part of the reasoning that led the founders to create the service in the first place. Look at the almost total absence of such useful or interesting services created in places that don't have VCs.

Retric 8y ago

Users love the VC's money. Uber handed out multiple billions of dollars subsidizing both riders and drivers from these massive investments, but even smaller investments often mean the same things. From photo sharing to local delivery most of these services are beloved in large part because they don't need to be directly profitable.

beauzero 8y ago
...yet. "Directly or indirectly profitable" eventually happens.

megaman22 8y ago

I can't think of anybody that would be better to acquire GitHub, if it had to be sold off. At least Microsoft is heavily invested in developer tools, and making them better all the time.