13 ms·
Gitlab loses one-third of its value after company issues weak forecast
- karmakaze 4y agoFunny how the headline says value rather than valuation or stock price. The value of the company to users and potential users is about the same.
- shanth 4y agonginx-proxy-manager + gitea + drone CI + terraform
- xvilka 4y agoDrone CI is Woodpecker now: https://woodpecker-ci.org/ https://woodpecker-ci.org/
- arsome 4y agoToo many things in Gitlab feel half-baked, like their requirements feature which is essentially just their issue tracker, no document management, just toss some issues in the bin. And they expect enterprises to pay for it because they checked the feature box. https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/requirements/ https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/requirements/
- lmiller1990 4y agoTo be fair, a lot of enterprise sales is based on "ticking boxes".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- liketochill 4y agoWhich is great until the users blame the tool because they can’t finish their work
- fletchowns 4y agoI've had a good experience using GitLab for source code repositories, pipelines, and code reviews. I don't have much experience using it for issue tracking and document management since we use Jira & Confluence for that. For my own hobby projects outside of work the free tier has been great, and it was easy to host my own gitlab runner so that I don't have to pay for CI/CD minutes.
- epolanski 4y agoSame here I only had good experience with it and I just can't get used to other PR review UIs. That being said if I were a CTO I would not buy their services, I think they are too expensive.
- kyriakos 4y agoPR review UI seems very bad to me compared to both github and bit bucket. So it's probably a matter of what you got used to first. One of its major issues is not displaying merge conflicts in some scenarios, just tells you of the existence of a conflict and you need to figure it out outside the UI.
- gscho 4y agoEven though features are half-baked I still think the future is bright for them, especially if GitHub slips up or gets complacent. Intel showed us that it is possible.
- mekster 4y agoI hate to see GitLab becoming mainstream if GitHub fails. We need a better alternative than a bloated one out of control.
- paulddraper 4y agoI just think it's too ambitious. Everything and the kitchen sink just will never be as good as best of breed.
- mekster 4y agoAnyone can be ambitious. Without the right skill, it's just a failure.
- hypothesis 4y agoThat seems to account for layoff and upcoming pricing changes.
- c2h5oh 4y agoThe fact they can leave things as serious as this https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/344919 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/344919 unfixed for almost a year and a half basically makes them not suitable for serious use in my opinion. And since my opinion often matters they continue to lose business.
- maccard 4y agoIt's hard to blame them for every specific bug. It might be incredibly important to you, but not to others, and there's probably another showstopper bug for someone else that isn't important for you in return.
- c2h5oh 4y agoTrue, but at the same time built-in CI with your own agents was an area where they had a significant advantage over Github the fact it would routinely fail during evaluation has killed any prospect of Github to Gitlab migrations at at least 2 orgs I was involved with.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago> It might be incredibly important to you, but not to others, and there's probably another showstopper bug for someone else that isn't important for you in return. Yes, but that's not a good thing; IMO they've hit the point where they're dying by papercuts. If one user in a million has a completely awful show stopper bug, the product/business will probably be fine. If one in ten users has a fairly serious bug, they're in a bad spot. Obviously they're not at either of those extremes.... but I think they're closer to the latter than the former.
- maccard 4y agoThis is true of every large piece of software though. Pretty much every piece of software I use in anger has absolute showstopper bugs, but the alternative isn't betterm it's different.
- xeromal 4y agoI made a garbage tool to pull repositories from gitlab to github or vice versa. I used it just to explore Go so it's not really prod ready but handy if you're just looking to move your code over. It most likely will explode. https://github.com/tylerjgarland/git2git https://github.com/tylerjgarland/git2git
- mkl95 4y agoWhat happened to Gitlab? They used to be one step ahead of Github in some areas, then seemed to go full enterprisey and lost their competitive edge. I smell some sales oriented strategies.
- aynyc 4y agoWhen was GitLab ahead of GitHub? I've been using both for as long as I remember, I always thought GitLab is more marketing than GitHub. Believe or not, I prefer BitBucket because I don't care much for CI integrations.
- mkl95 4y agoI remember Gitlab having some features that Github lacked and subsequently ripped off, such as merge queues.
- imran-iq 4y agoalso free private repositories, the github free tier used to be very lacking to say the least
- agumonkey 4y agoThere was a tiny period where github was a bit stagnant and gitlab felt more capable. Felt a bit like mysql vs postgres. Now I think github got the lead back (slightly simpler UI/workflow). But i don't know much.
- IlPeach 4y agoYeah that was before Microsoft bought GitHub. GH had been constantly exceeding expectations and GitLab trying to play catch up (which smells of bad product strategy).
- rossmohax 4y agoGitlab CI pipelines are miles ahead from Github Actions or Circle CI.
- eeasss 4y agoThe fully remote approach may have hit its limits.
- epolanski 4y agoNobody I know self manages their git and integrations regardless of where they physically work.
- karaterobot 4y agoI assume that commenter is referring to Gitlab's famous advocacy for remote-only work. But, it's still completely irrelevant to their earnings forecast or stock price.
- whateveracct 4y agoThat commenter is a manager, which explains why they are non sequitur-ing against remote work.
- mmcclure 4y agoI think GP was referring to Gitlab itself being very vocal about fully remote. Without commenting on anything else in this thread, their company handbook[1] and the culture around it are something I find pretty interesting. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all-remote/guide/ https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all-remote/guide/
- t3rmi 4y agoI wonder if we can compare remote vs in person companies across industries and see stock price deltas across the last 2 years.
- nativecoinc 4y agoWe use Bitbucket at work. If we switched to some other forge next week I would not care. Git forges should be expendable.
- Spivak 4y agoThe moat is CI, or more accurately that Gitlab CI is really good and using it requires hosting your code there.
- jamesfinlayson 4y agoThis - I had to move to GitLab from GitHub recently and getting all the tests to run with the new agents was 99% of my time. Pushing a git repo to a new remote is nothing.
- hbogert 4y agoThat's because current CI platforms are the new lock-in. If you'd go the otherway around it'd cost you the same amount of time. It's a horrible abstraction layer.
- jamesfinlayson 4y agoYeah I try and keep my stuff to depending on the bare miniumum i.e. bash/Docker/etc (jq and maybe Python) but invariably there is something that needs to change.
- nimbius 4y agothings like github and gitlab always struck me as oddities. it costs virtually nothing to deploy a containerized gitea and jenkins, or gitlab CE, and you have direct control over its performance and options without any spend. call me old fashioned but these online git-o-matic sites just seem more like rent-seeking during a recession.
- stavros 4y agoThis comment strikes me as fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of GitHub. I don't care that I can set up Gitea (and I already have an instance), I want GitHub because it makes it trivial for people to issue PRs to my code. Then, because everyone has a GitHub account and knows how to use it, and everyone is already on it, everyone else goes on it too. Not to mention that I don't need to maintain CI/container registries/asset hosts/pages myself.
- vorpalhex 4y agoThere was an attempt to bring a distributed forge architecture to gitea and co. The idea being the project could be hosted on one instance but you could fork to your own to do your work before PRing back to the project. Github but bring your own. I believe the project died out but it was a good idea. All the benefits of Github without the lock in and single point of failure.
- stavros 4y agoYeah, that would have been really good... Too bad it doesn't seem to have come to nothing.
- ratmice 4y agoIt looks like gitea supports running a proc_receive hook which can be used to implement pull requests over git:// using a client like https://git-repo.info/en/ https://git-repo.info/en/ (full disclosure) I had written a proof of concept implementation that allows you to use the git-repo.info client to send PRs over git protocol, which you can find here https://github.com/pullreqr/pullreqr_githook https://github.com/pullreqr/pullreqr_githook The primary impediment seems partially to be social/coordination where distributed git requires clients to be set up apriori, but it does work in cases where you are using it in house, etc. I'd kind of be happy to spend more time on it, but with no one actually running the protocol publicly, there is no one to send/receive PRs to or from.
- stavros 4y agoAs a user who really liked GitLab, there are a few things that made me consider to move back to GitHub: 1. They had a generous organization free tier, which was handy for stealthily moving companies to it (move a few repos, get people used to it, then move more repos, then when everyone recognizes the value, start paying). They ruined that as soon as they put a limit on the number of people that can be in an org for free. Moving stealthily was good because... 2. GitLab CI was best-of-breed, but GitHub Actions is really good too now (maybe better? I haven't used it enough to answer that). 3. The price is really high now, so it doesn't really make sense to even move a company over to it. 4. The community is (and has always been) on GitHub, so there was always a big reason to be there. Now that the rest of the GitLab offerings aren't as competitive, this wins.
- activitypea 4y agoAs much as I love the product, I've really come to dislike Gitlab as a company. The constant price hikes and the gutting of the free tier aren't exactly developer-friendly.
- packetlost 4y agoSame. They forced GitHub to quit resting on their laurels, at least.
- Macha 4y agoIt feels like they've moved into the extract value phase for sure, maybe a bit forced by github actions removing their USP. I'm still using them for now, but I feel the day I move back to Github for the higher profile or self-hosted gitea/forgejo for the data control is coming.
- harrisonjackson 4y agoIt is especially annoying because of how transparent they are about it. You can follow along in merge requests and issues as they discuss exactly this.
- dcchambers 4y agoTbf 99% of other companies are still doing that, just not in the open. It's a business, their goal is to make money. I kind of like that they're willing to let everyone see into the nitty gritty details of how they do that.
- benatkin 4y ago> just not in the open And that makes it less awkward.
- medstrom 4y agoWhy does transparency annoy you?
- deleted 4y ago
- swyx 4y agoin their earnings call @sytses also announced that he has cancer but is powering thru it working full time even while he receives chemotherapy. snippet: https://twitter.com/OnodaCapital/status/1635379330498060289 https://twitter.com/OnodaCapital/status/1635379330498060289 wishing him the best of health. he inspires me constantly.
- DoesntMatter22 4y ago[flagged]
- swyx 4y agohey, please have some tact. sid is a very active part of our community and almost certainly reading this post. dont say anything here you wouldnt say to a friend's face especially in his time of vulnerability.
- Aeolun 4y agoIt may just be me, but that sounds like something a friend would say? It’s not exactly a secret that you’ve made it, nor is it controversial that cancer sucks.
- DoesntMatter22 4y agoI didn't mean that in any sort of bad way. I'm sorry it was taken that way. It's just that it seems like incredibly bad luck to have "made it" on a level that most people can't imagine, and then you are struck with a serious illness like this.
- megous 4y agoHaving cancer while poor sucks even more.
- Aeolun 4y agoTo some extend, but you’d probably be more or less ok from a financial perspective in the Netherlands.
- viraptor 4y agoI'm annoyed that they don't want my money. I'm a really basic user and try to keep my private and public stuff there instead of GitHub. I fit in a free tier and would happily pay maybe $5 for it. But I wasn't going to spend $20 and definitely won't spend $30. Come on GitLab, I want to keep using you and see you succeed. Let me pay $5 for some token feature like extra GB of space and to vote with my money to keep you going. I'll even do it for a "supporter" badge on my profile.
- mgl 4y agoWell, $30 mo is just $1 a day. Depending on where you live it can be nothing.
- kevingadd 4y agoThis logic is simply not how you get money from ordinary consumers. If someone wants to support you at a level of $X for a service they're already getting for free, saying 'just give us $X*5' is not the right move. I recently watched a video game community melt down because (due to exchange rate shenanigans) the pricing of a monthly pass was $5.99 instead of $4.99, and people got furious when (a non-employee) moderator said the equivalent of 'you don't have one dollar?'
- mgl 4y agoAnd did they all leave the platform or just a dozen of members published some comments of dissapointment?
- kevingadd 4y agoIt was bad enough that the developers laid off all the discord moderators and made a public apology, but they didn't say how many people chose not to renew their monthly passes.
- spartanatreyu 4y agoThe problem is that gitlab is just another service that add together to be a lot.
- gregwebs 4y agoGitlab pricing used to be something like $4/mo and they saw incredible growth. They raised their rates to $19/mo and now are seeing slow growth. In April they are raising to $29/mo- not sure what they think is going to happen. Also, for anyone that actively watches, they have to wonder if there will be another price hike once you are on their platform. Github Enterprise is only $21/mo and for most users it has all the same features of Gitlab. Gitlab's main differentiator for a long time was CI, but now Github has its own equivalent (Actions). It seems that Gitlab is only going to be left with 1) existing Gitlab users 2) users that want some enterprise feature set that doesn't exist on Github, and want it in a single platform without a third party
- chainwax 4y agoUnless Actions has gotten a lot more fleshed out since I last used it, I don't think it's as robust as Gitlab CI.
- stabbles 4y ago- Github Action's design is much better, just look at [1] for example, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit in Gitlab that's not done for some reason - I've had tons of issues with their kubernetes runners, hard to debug spurious system failures - They still don't display the last N bytes of the logs when logs get long, just the first N bytes, which is entirely useless when a build fails - It's awfully slow to navigate through pipelines, in particular child pipelines - The `stages` things is just useless noise, I just wanna specify dependencies please, I don't want to be forced to also put each job in a stage, it's weird. - You can't expose a secret only to a single job step; they don't really have finer granularity for job steps like Github Actions has -- they just generate a script.sh that's executed directly. - Github has many more reusable actions from the community, I don't think Gitlab has that at all? At least not in a convenient way. [1] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/395964 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/395964
- hardwaresofton 4y ago> Github has many more reusable actions from the community, I don't think Gitlab has that at all? At least not in a convenient way. This is the big one. Github’s ability and dominance in the social space means they have the most active actions ecosystems. They made actions easier to import share and built marketplaces and now gobs of developers build value into it just for clout (and because they enjoy software of course). If you think about it carefully, it’s actually a security nightmare. You have no idea what a random Github action you “uses:”d is doing, but in practice 90%+ of the time it doesn’t matter, you get good functionality and save time for free.
- awill 4y agoInstead of Gitlab actually attracting more customers, they're trying to extract more money from their existing customers. This never ever goes well. Why can CEOs not see this. I'm moving to GitHub. I've always championed the small guy, but the last couple of years have been terrible for Gitlab users.
- spacebanana7 4y agoI wish that were true but Oracle, Cisco, PayPal etc all seem to have succeeded in pivoting to more extractive business models over growth. At least in terms of earnings.
- awill 4y agoWhen you are compared to Oracle, it's always, always, always bad. A lot of companies want and try to move off OracleDB, but it's really, really hard. I don't think that's the case for moving off Gitlab.
- siliconc0w 4y agoThe problem with these SaaS companies is that they all eventually become seduced into whale hunting (big enterprise) and the product ultimately suffers as they are forced to adopt whale pricing and focus on endless enterprise reqs that the whales say they want (and most of the time don't actually use). The product drifts or stagnates for their core use case and then another startup comes along to 'disrupt' the market and they do until the process repeats.
- mdorazio 4y agoHere's their operating margin for the last 4 quarters: Q1: -49% Q2: -65% Q3: -50% Q4: -38% So what you want is a business model where the company runs purely on VC money instead of on actual profit. SaaS companies like Gitlab usually can't operate at a profit with only free-tier and cheap-tier users - their overhead is way too high. Those tiers are a gateway drug offered at a loss to get people on board so that eventually the actually-profitable enterprise accounts will stack up enough to make up the loss. It's kind of a standard bait-and-switch pushed by the whole VC model. I'm personally hoping we see less of it now that the money spigot is drying up.
- geophph 4y ago“Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.” https://culturalgutter.com/2023/01/25/the-enshitification-of-tiktok-and-everything/ https://culturalgutter.com/2023/01/25/the-enshitification-of...
- zmmmmm 4y agoWe would be giving them tens of thousands a year but they don't want our money. So we use the free version.
- Havoc 4y agoI like the product - been selfhosting it for years...but frankly the complete absence of a hobby level tier between 0 and 29 makes it a non-starter for me as a managed solution It just doesn't produce 29 worth value for me pm. Probably does for a corporate user though so i can see why they're doing it
- jacooper 4y agoPersonally I only care about GitLab because its open source with a good CI and because of Copilot. If the supreme court says the copilot is fully legal, I would probably just revert to using Github for personal projects(their free tier is just unbeatable), i still use it more than anything else, because everything is on Github. I am excited about Gitea Actions[1], as I feel gitea is generally only missing a decent CI system, and codeberg is growing fast. 1. https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/ https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-actions/
- mrslave 4y agoWhat's your preferred CI/CD system to pair with Gitea? I tried Drone once and found the configuration to be nasty, specifically OAuth2 under Docker Compose. Also the Drone UI left a lot to be desired. This was a while ago so grain of salt etc.
- jacooper 4y agoHonestly none of the currently available ones. Tried Drone/woodpecker, but still not good enough, looking forward to gitea actions though!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hiddendragon99 4y ago[dead]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mikercampbell 4y agoI get “how this all works” but valuation seems like magic
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Lorin 4y agoGitlab fell off once they went public, now it's shareholder value instead of ... developer value? They are also laughably slow at implementing features that have been readily available in competing products if you look at their issues page.
- erlkonig 4y agoGitlab has been cursed by a marketing team that seemingly just can't imagine having mixed licensing levels. At a side effect, organizations that would adopt them at the low (free) tier (or just above) for the whole company, a higher tier for devs, and max tier for project management, etc, just can't. Instead they have to have separate gitlabs to cover the whole organization, which has a whole set of associated annoyances. I speak from direct experience, at a company that had the mid level, liked the features, but was forced to eventually jettison them for the free tier to cut costs while broadening internal support. And we reported this problem to them, this basic lack of a mixed tier system, something many customers want. But Gitlab can't seem to get it through marketing's head that being nearly everywhere is better than just running for few large companies. Running everywhere means that many devs would just bring along an expectation of having gitlab as a matter of course, spreading adoption like a beneficial contagion. Instead, any useful level is being priced into irrelevance from a smaller organization's perspective, something many devs will see at prohibitively expensive, and be the fomites for that perspective instead as they move between companies. The result is terrible. Our company switched to Git on Microsoft Azure. Good job, Gitlab sales (heavy sarcasm). Hey, Gitlab management, have you checked to make sure your sales team isn't secretly taking kickbacks from Microsoft? (yes, I'm probably kidding, right?)...
- maxdo 4y agowhy not use gitlab free version + runners on your kube?
- janee 4y agoSad to see. We really loved gitlab, but the pricing was so horrendous for what we were using and couldn't be scaled to non-tech employees (e.g. wiki or just reading MRs), so moved to github and haven't looked back. Interestingly gitlab pricing influenced us to rethink our own pricing and we spent a month building out granular permission controls to allow sales to craft licenses bespoke to a client needs and charge less. After a year our revenue has 2x and there's a nice upsell flow towards enterprise.
- lopkeny12ko 4y agoContrary to the common opinion here, I've really enjoyed using GitLab and don't see many problems with it. Lot of the comments here complaining about pricing. Please remember that GitLab's core is open source. If you think the managed offering is too expensive, just host an instance yourself. This is what I have been doing at home for years, and my company at work for even longer.
- naet 4y agoMy small company pays for GitLab and I don't see the bill directly, but I definitely have enjoyed working with GitLab. GitHub actions may be catching up but GitLab ci/cd tools have worked great for a while now for us.
- mardifoufs 4y agoI think the main reason why I dislike the pricing is that there's no way to buy seats with different premium tiers. I'm sure they've done the maths, but it's a very hard sell to just upgrade from the community edition, knowing that you'll have to now restrict the instance knowing that even a casual user (marketing, sys.engineers, mech engineers, etc) will cost the same price...when that limitation just doesn't exist if you don't pay anything at all! It's just counterintuitive. Good luck trying to get buy in for the Ultimate tier (1200$ per year vs 300$ for the normal paid tier) when only a few users need or use the improved reporting/security featuresEven if it's not a huge cost per se, it makes most premium features a lot less attractive. And remember, you can self host Github Enterprise for a lot less than Gitlab now. Again, I'm convinced they know how to price their product a lot better than us, but as an enduser, it's a bummer. Because Gitlab is still an amazing product, if just for their open source core alone. So I really hope they figure out a way to be sustainable.
- TheChaplain 4y agoDear GitLab, please introduce a $5 "Pro" tier for small time developer/enthusiasts us who can't justify $29 a month. Should be enough to just double the free tier, and perhaps make purchasable extras available such as buy extra CI minutes or transfer. Otherwise there is no way we can support you.
- neom 4y agoFingers crossed someone buys them, I'm embarrassed that I'm so underwater in this stock, really regret buying it, one of my emotional purchases. :\
- EspadaV9 4y agoI really like GitLab the product, and am part of their Hero and Core teams, however, the recent changes and changes pricing adjustments have me doubting if I can continue supporting them. At work we use their hosted ultimate plan and we were looking to move to their premium but might instead go straight to a self hosted CE instance instead since there is nothing between free and $29/user/month (which is actually $348/user/year because they don't support monthly payments) and the free hosted plan is so crazy restricted.
- animitronix 4y agoHere's how you fix gitlab: * Fire the monetization team (yes this is a thing they have) and most of the sales team to reduce cost and hyperfocus on revenue * Go back to implementing user requests * Fixed the missed up pricing model, including guest accounts * Stop releasing half-baked features like the recent subtask debacle Hopefully it's not too late.
- intellix 4y agoWe were allured to Gitlab as a total offering: code repo, issue and project management, auto devops. We were developers trying to do everything then we hired project managers who wanted JIRA. Then we outgrew autodevops and lately it just feels like Gitlab aren't aligned with our requirements at all. We're paying $19/user/mo for 36 users and just to get status checks for screenshot regression testing we need to upgrade to $99/user/mo? To get that with github and much more we can pay $24/user/mo. It's always felt like they're trying to spread themselves too thin and add a billion half features. Like monitoring our GKE cluster from within Gitlab... Why wouldn't I just look at GCP when it's a billion times better and actually works