3 ms·

Because they can host their software and community for free?

woodruffw 4y ago
I think it would be accurate to say that the value GitHub extracts from the OSS community (in the form of its core VCS, network effects, ML models, etc.) substantially outstrips the value returned to the community. Which is not to say that the latter is insignificant!
- loeg 4y ago
  Is that a qualitative or quantitative argument? Like, would you put numbers to either/both sides of that? I'm not confident Github gets more value than it returns (but you may be right).
  - ZiiS 4y ago
    Github are confident though so...
    - cortesoft 4y ago
      The OSS projects are also confident that they are getting a better deal, though, since they continue to host on Github. Sometimes both sides win.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        I don't think this requires belief in a "better" deal, only a good one (or an acceptable one, given the friction and network effects involved in switching).
        blackoil 4y ago
        Better measure is if GH is getting very high value in return,some competition should be there working at lesser margins (giving more value for OSS)
- replygirl 4y ago
  i think that would be grossly inaccurate, as the OSS _services_ market alone is worth 3-4x GitHub's valuation at the time of acquisition
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I don't think the OSS services market (I'm assuming you mean Red Hat, etc.) extracts disproportionate value from GitHub. If anything, I'd expect those companies to pay handsomely for their access -- mine certainly does, and we're primarily open source.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  “Symbiotic” by definition means one depends on the other. I think it’s moot who depends on who more. They both depend on each other in a substantial way. Without the other they would likely adapt, but in a suboptimal way, at least for some time. But I think folks dramatically undervalue what GitHub(Lab) brings, and how expensive it is to host such a system for everyone.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    You said "symbiotic," not me :-) I would describe the relationship as mutualistic: both parties benefit, but not necessarily proportionally. And they don't need to benefit proportionally, but there's also value in highlighting the disproportionality: it behooves the OSS community to remember that extremely valuable ecosystems like GitHub and GitLab derive a significant amount of their value from the continued (and mostly passive) goodwill of the community.
- tomnipotent 4y ago
  GitHub had ~$1b in revenues in 2022, but I have no doubt that it created many multiples of that in value among its 90m users and communities in the same period. I would wager that the cumulative revenues of all third-party services (CircleCI, Sourcegraph etc.) that are part of the GitHub ecosystem also far exceed GitHub, value and revenues that would unlikely exist without GH (or be at an earlier phase of their evolution). I'd even go so far as to say the value created by pull requests alone exceeds $1bln annually, for the many commercial and open source teams that use it to get work done.

I think it would be accurate to say that the value GitHub extracts from the OSS community (in the form of its core VCS, network effects, ML models, etc.) substantially outstrips the value returned to the community. Which is not to say that the latter is insignificant!

loeg 4y ago
Is that a qualitative or quantitative argument? Like, would you put numbers to either/both sides of that? I'm not confident Github gets more value than it returns (but you may be right).
- ZiiS 4y ago
  Github are confident though so...
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    The OSS projects are also confident that they are getting a better deal, though, since they continue to host on Github. Sometimes both sides win.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      I don't think this requires belief in a "better" deal, only a good one (or an acceptable one, given the friction and network effects involved in switching).
      - blackoil 4y ago
        Better measure is if GH is getting very high value in return,some competition should be there working at lesser margins (giving more value for OSS)
replygirl 4y ago
i think that would be grossly inaccurate, as the OSS _services_ market alone is worth 3-4x GitHub's valuation at the time of acquisition
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I don't think the OSS services market (I'm assuming you mean Red Hat, etc.) extracts disproportionate value from GitHub. If anything, I'd expect those companies to pay handsomely for their access -- mine certainly does, and we're primarily open source.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
“Symbiotic” by definition means one depends on the other. I think it’s moot who depends on who more. They both depend on each other in a substantial way. Without the other they would likely adapt, but in a suboptimal way, at least for some time. But I think folks dramatically undervalue what GitHub(Lab) brings, and how expensive it is to host such a system for everyone.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  You said "symbiotic," not me :-) I would describe the relationship as mutualistic: both parties benefit, but not necessarily proportionally. And they don't need to benefit proportionally, but there's also value in highlighting the disproportionality: it behooves the OSS community to remember that extremely valuable ecosystems like GitHub and GitLab derive a significant amount of their value from the continued (and mostly passive) goodwill of the community.
tomnipotent 4y ago
GitHub had ~$1b in revenues in 2022, but I have no doubt that it created many multiples of that in value among its 90m users and communities in the same period. I would wager that the cumulative revenues of all third-party services (CircleCI, Sourcegraph etc.) that are part of the GitHub ecosystem also far exceed GitHub, value and revenues that would unlikely exist without GH (or be at an earlier phase of their evolution). I'd even go so far as to say the value created by pull requests alone exceeds $1bln annually, for the many commercial and open source teams that use it to get work done.