10 ms·
Github Raises $100 Million
- maxko87 14y agoCan't read the full article without an account. Try this: http://gigaom.com/2012/07/09/github-finally-raises-funding-100m-from-andreessen-horowitz/ http://gigaom.com/2012/07/09/github-finally-raises-funding-1...
- jakebellacera 14y agoThis was the only article I could find at the time, but I'm getting you up to the top so others can read.
- w1ntermute 14y agoScreenshot of WSJ article: http://i.imgur.com/jfZLu.png http://i.imgur.com/jfZLu.png
- 1qaz2wsx3edc 14y agoYou make the internet a truly amazing place.
- zxtang 14y agoYou can use Google's cache of the page: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303292204577517111643094308.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://... Clicking on the current page link should still allow you to read the page too, at least it works for me.
- DanielRibeiro 14y agoOr their own blog post: https://github.com/blog/1189-investing-in-github https://github.com/blog/1189-investing-in-github
- tubbo 14y ago2 months ago github was all "we don't need VC funding we're completely profitable"...
- count 14y agoWhat better way to pitch?
- djloche 14y agoYep. I was involved in a local 'pitch your startup to a room full of investors' conference. Guess who 'won' the contest and had everyone talking about it? The three college kids with a mobile app that flat out said, we don't need your money, we're profitable, we have big deals with major corporations and we're growing fast. We're here to work on our product pitch to people outside our niche for continued growth.
- rprasad 14y agoWas that the demo day in Santa Monica in April/May?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Killswitch 14y agoDid you not read the article? They want to expand, being profitable does not mean they have the revenue to expand as much as they'd like. Sure they can be like any startup and get some nieve devs to join up with the whole "We're doing big things and can become huge, you can be a part of this, and be millionaires!". But they'd probably rather give their devs what their worth.
- mrkmcknz 14y ago"Little-known social coding start-up". Got to love the WSJ.
- cluda01 14y agoNone of my non-programmer/startup friends know who or what a github is so I think that given the WSJ's audience, it's a fair statement.
- ef4 14y agoYes, "well-known" is context dependent. But I would argue the WSJ chose a poor context. The reader already knows whether or not he/she has heard of Github, so the real question is "are they well-known in their industry?" Pick any non-consumer-facing industry where the average person doesn't know the players, and everybody is "little known". That doesn't really tell you anything about their actual businesses or reputations.
- matt2000 14y agoI agree with you, the wording from the WSJ sounds like they want the investment size to seem ridiculous. How about "quickly growing and profitable software company github..."
- kennywinker 14y agoNo it's not. Something like "Social coding startup GitHub, hugely popular in the coding world, ...." would be a whole lot clearer. Little-known, though technically correct, implies that they are not well known in any circle.
- sologoub 14y agoI'd go even further, and say that GitHub is incredibly well-known within their target market (developers). Everyone else doesn't matter, as the business will not be built around the general public. WSJ is supposed to provide good reporting with strong bias towards informing potential investors (as a financial/business news paper). The wording choice doesn't make a strong case for value associated with the company and sounds like some no-name co. just got a pile of money that they are like to lose. (An exaggeration on my part for illustration purposes only.)
- zashapiro 14y agoI just happened to be on their About page today and I noticed they'd taken down the "VC money raised - $0.00" section. Congrats to the fine folks at GitHub!
- vulf 14y agoThat went away some time ago, when the latest redesign of the page was put up.
- oldgregg 14y agoWhat a great way to ruin a perfectly awesome company.
- mschalle 14y agoWhat makes you think this will ruin them?
- herval 14y agowhy would it ruin them? Given the valuation people are talking about, they sold less than 15% of the business - they'll probably retain enough control to do whatever they want with it and probably try new things... I personally know at least one company that has been profitable from the very beginning and took 3 rounds of VC already, always on the same terms: "we don't need your money, so we'll sell you a very small piece for a large sum and run with it the way we do today". In the end, it's a great way to either cash-out, put some money in the bank to avoid future surprises or launch new experiments/products with minimal risk...
- anon808 14y ago"with minimal risk" is it possible the maximal risk they encountered when building github with their own cash helped make the great product github is today? history has shown time and time again if you give someone a long enough rope they will hang themselves, doesn't mean that's githubs fate of course, but they're certainly opening a door of influence that wasn't around through the initial building of a great product.
- herval 14y agoI'm not sure there is a correlation between little money and making great products - that's a link people (specially incubators and accelerators) try to force-feed on everyone's throats, but I'm not convinced if having no money produces better/more companies/products than having "too much" money. Anyway, that's all unrelated to the topic here :-) If you give someone a short enough rope, they'll never be able to get out of the hole...
- tlrobinson 14y agoCongratulations GitHub! I'm a bit surprised given their previous stance on VC... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4VtBcmbbSs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4VtBcmbbSs http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2486-bootstrapped-profitable-proud-github http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2486-bootstrapped-profitable-...
- richardv 14y agoI got five words into that article and hit back to find a different source. > "Little-known social coding start-up GitHub..." Really? The Gigaom is a much better read. http://gigaom.com/2012/07/09/github-finally-raises-funding-100m-from-andreessen-horowitz/ http://gigaom.com/2012/07/09/github-finally-raises-funding-1...
- zmanji 14y agoConsider the audience of the WSJ. I doubt Github is known to more than 5% of the WJS audience.
- kennywinker 14y agoIt's still a misleading statement. GitHub is HUGE in the coding world. They should acknowledge that.
- slig 14y agoI'd guess that less than 5% of programmers knows github and/or git.
- kennywinker 14y agoI'd say you are wrong. GitHub has 1,784,455 members. That alone is probably 5% of coders. There are still many millions more people out there that have heard of GitHub, or downloaded code via GitHub, but don't have an account.
- shocks 14y agoAwesome. Now they can make more font icons.
- leftnode 14y agohttps://github.com/blog/1189-investing-in-github https://github.com/blog/1189-investing-in-github Straight from them. Congratulations on building such a great business.
- yan 14y agoI love GitHub, but anyone else felt it was a little immodest for TPW to say they'd "hire Marc" if they could? Can't put it into words, but I don't feel that Tom is in the position to make that statement.
- danielharan 14y agoReally, "We wish we could hire them both" irks you? Sounds to me like a great heuristic for whether a person would be a good investor.
- yan 14y agoI realize it's a statement of praise, but I think Marc is legendary in the valley and an immensely successful investor/veteran of the business. Implying that he'd be in the running to become an employee at GitHub just felt off. Again, hard to put it into words.
- 14y ago
- kyleslattery 14y agoOn GitHub's blog: https://github.com/blog/1189-investing-in-github https://github.com/blog/1189-investing-in-github
- twinturbo 14y agoI'm waiting for an IPO.
- base698 14y agoThey certainly deserve it. They have a clear business model that makes money now and a gorgeous product. Look forward to seeing more Octocat in SOMA :)
- getsat 14y agoI am looking forward to the billboard on 101. If Basho and NewRelic can have one, so can GitHub.
- brown9-2 14y agoCEO Tom Preston-Werner said the company hopes to develop new features but also improve existing ones, such as web applications for different operating systems. "web applications for different operating systems"?
- azylman 14y agoMy guess is they're talking about the various Github desktop clients and he was misquoted...
- qntmfred 14y ago$750M valuation!?
- franzus 14y agoInternet business is conducted in fantasy dollars.
- swombat 14y agoWTF? Why? What for? What are they planning to do with so much money?
- anon808 14y ago"Because we want to be better. We want to build the best products. We want to solve harder problems. We want to make life easier for more people. The experience and resources of Andreessen Horowitz can help us do that." I guess they didn't think they were able to build the best products without outside investors. goes without saying, I hope it doesn't change github for the worse; eventhough history has plenty of counter examples. good luck github.
- alttab 14y agoThe minute they change my e-mail address to @github.com I'm setting the world on fire.
- SatvikBeri 14y agoEnterprise sales?
- schandur 14y agoThat's been around for a while, actually. https://enterprise.github.com/ https://enterprise.github.com/
- SatvikBeri 14y agoRight, the enterprise product has been around. But the process to actually sell enterprise-level products to big companies usually involves long, high-touch sales cycles; as well as quite a bit of initial consulting. My guess is that's what Github will use their $100MM for.
- herval 14y ago"Little-known social coding start-up GitHub Inc. has raised $100 million in its first round of funding, in a sign of how big investment bets are continuing in Silicon Valley" this "little-known" probably has more revenue than a lot of "well-knowns" out there, and the "bet" here is probably a lot safer too...
- yuvadam 14y agoI hate to crash the party, but this is a very odd move for an awesome company and a service that I use and <3. Github has always been against taking money. Actually, TPW has used some very harsh words criticizing startups that choose to take VC money. Now, Github raises 100 gazillion dollars? How the f*ck do they plan on spending that wisely? Sure, it's nice to have that sum in the bank. But, in all honesty, someone has to explain how this is a reasonable move, because I simply don't get it.
- mrkmcknz 14y agohttp://venturebeat.com/2012/07/09/github-funding-say-what/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/09/github-funding-say-what/
- leftnode 14y agoMaybe they're building their own data center? Or really trying to expand into the enterprise market by going up head to head with Atlassian (expanding their issues and Wiki tools to complete separate packages). All speculation, of course.
- alexatkeplar 14y agoData centers can usually be debt funded - the data center is the security.
- forgotusername 14y ago$100m to maintain their current product doesn't make sense, but I imagine they're interested in growing (duh). Adding 100 developers and 50+50 sales/support guys could easily eat $25m a year.
- nostromo 14y agoPulling from an old blog post, I don't see any inconsistency. http://tom.preston-werner.com/2010/10/18/optimize-for-happiness.html http://tom.preston-werner.com/2010/10/18/optimize-for-happin... > The ironic thing about bootstrapping and venture capital is that once you demonstrate some success, investors will come to YOU. When this happens you will be in a much better place to make a more reasoned choice about taking on additional capital and all the complexities that come with it. Talking to VCs with some leverage in your back pocket is an entirely different game from throwing yourself in front of a conference table full of general partners and trying to persuade them that you're worth their time and money. Power is happiness.
- richardv 14y ago"finally" raises funding. In my mind the $750M valuation is still actually pretty consevative. GitHub has a long long way to go and I see so many great things ahead for the team, but I don't understand why they would raise $100M? Is this a deal for the founders to take some money off of the table? I don't see what benefits $100M will have for them. (Don't shoot me for my opinions on this one), but I think it's also really only a matter of time before the legacy systems move from SVN/Mercurial/CVS onto GitHub. Some people use BitBucket (I guess because Atlassian makes some other great software). SourceForge (past it's sell-by-date), and Google Code isn't really suitable for anything other than hosting specific release candidates or tags..
- human_error 14y agoSome people prefer BitBucket because it offers free private repos.
- meta8609 14y agoI wonder what the percentage the founders are pocketing?
- blhack 14y agoOkay, a question: I have a github (http://github.com/blhack http://github.com/blhack -- nothing too interesting there), but only use it in the "free" way; saving my javascript stuff, and keeping track of some arduino projects. "Github" and "money" in the same thought here triggered me wondering about maybe buying a monthly plan from them, and letting them host all of my code for work, play, etc. (stuff I'm too embarrassed to release, ha) Maybe I'm just naive, but how large are most git repos? You can get a full pizza box, in a rack, with power and data, and plenty of storage for $50/mo. You could get two redundant linodes for $40/mo. What are people getting out of github that they are willing to spend as much money as some of these plans cost? (What I mean is: if this was $5/mo for unlimited repos, I'd have a plan now. But $7/mo for 5? That seems steep)
- brntbeer 14y agoTPW (or some early GH employee) has posted somewhere that yes, the cost of servers on your own is cheaper. However, the original goal of GitHub was to build a tool that allowed collaboration easier. You pay for the experience and the tools and the network IMO.
- blhack 14y agoAh, gotcha. I guess I was missing out on the social aspect of it. But I have to wonder: if you're hosting that many private repos...how much does "social" play into it?
- andreaja 14y agoYou can add collaborators to private repos (ie people with push rights). You can have organizations with private repos and use the collaboration tools within the organization. For me, the private repos are more about having them where I have my other code.
- kennywinker 14y agoChange social to collaborative and you've got your answer.
- vlad 14y agoRumors first circulated in May: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4006017 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4006017
- cschmidt 14y agoTheir RSS feed has new hires almost every day. I suppose they need to pay all those hires. I wonder why they need quite so many people.
- nirvana 14y agoDamn, github seemed like the perfect model for bootstrapped, they were growing like a weed, seemed to not lack for money from income, etc. In these situations, I'd really love to know the details-- did they go shopping for investment (love to see that deck!) or did A19Z pursue them and talk them into it? Probably perfect timing, too, because I think things are going to cool down in 2013. Anyway, couldn't happen to a nicer company, but I do lament the loss of a bootstrapped example to point to. FWIW, can't read the wsj article because it is already behind the paywall.
- zanny 14y agoThey were the bootstrapped happy ending. They went from zero to market dominator for web services source control, and now they got their payoff for all the work with VC adoration.
- xpose2000 14y agoThey deserve every penny. And I am sure their revenue has been increasing over time (at least I hope so). They are a great blueprint on how to spend money wisely and develop features people care about. Off the top of my head: Company Github accounts, many desktop Github redesigns and performance tweaks, Github for Mac, Github for Windows, and a Github Android App. And this is only in the past 12 months or so. Amazing company.
- dantheman 14y agoCongrats to Github - great project, great team. Good work, can't wait to see what's next.
- jammur 14y agoI have to imagine that a chunk of that money is to provide liquidity to the founders, which they very much deserve. I don't really see how this is a bad thing. They were very much profitable, and were likely able to dictate the terms of the deal. Also, the money came from one of the most, if not THE most, reputable and respected VC firms.
- eoghan 14y agoTotally. This is a great deal for everyone. The founders (probably) achieve some liquidity, the company gets to expand up and out in the market, with the guidance of some of the most experienced investors in the business, the customers get see more resources put towards what is now a very large product, and the investors get to ride the wave that I think will see GitHub reach a few billion dollars valuation.
- hollerith 14y ago>I have to imagine that a chunk of that money is to provide liquidity to the founders That helps explain why the founders sold the equity, but not why the VCs bought it.
- taligent 14y agoReally ? Company with a proven modal, proven team, proven management and a massive growth opportunity (company hosted Github).
- hollerith 14y agoI did not consider the growth opportunity represented by the enterprise market. Sorry for being dense! (I considered deleting my comment, but my hand was stayed by its having gotten an upvote.)
- atirip 14y ago"I don't really see how this is a bad thing." They were independent and profitable company. Now they are virtally deep in debt. Everything they do now will be focused on one thing only - how to pay back that debt. They have people on board who's only goal is to get that loan back in multiples. Every decision from now on will be waged against the question "will it pay back the loan". Independency is lost, now we have company in deep dept, doing desperate things to pay it back. Desperate people in desperate situations make desperate decisions... Yes, founders maybe took some money off he table, that's good for them, no question. But the company is now troubled.
- arrowgunz 14y agoOkay, I think now is the time for GitHub to shut up about being Bootstrap and Bullshit. I think it's high time. I absolutely love the service but this is so lame. Bunch of hypocrites.
- vulf 14y ago> Bootstrapping in business means starting a business without external help or capital. Keyword: "starting". GitHub has long moved out of the "starting" phase, which has always been bootstrapped for them.
- courtewing 14y agoI'm a little surprised by all of the anti-VC sentiment in this thread so far, especially from this community. I'm perhaps even more surprised by the "what do they need 100 million dollars" sentiment that is being floated around. Github is an impressive company that has, so far, blown away its competition in many aspects. The fact that they have been self-bootstrapped up until this point and that they are profitable to boot is a testament to Tom's incredible leadership and their absolutely exceptional team. Tom has made it abundantly clear that he is not against venture capital. He just thinks it is starting off on the wrong foot if you try to build your company with the expectation of relying on venture capital from the start. So he's taken Github to profitability, and in four years they've all managed to transform the way most of us collaborate online. That is a profound achievement, but those responsible for such a radical change aren't generally the type to sit idly by on the backs of their previous accomplishments. They want to do bigger and better things with Github. They're not quite done trying to change the world. Now they are not only profitable, but they have substantial capital to invest in further innovations. With 0 dollars, a couple of guys built something amazing. I can't wait to see what they can do with 100 million.
- rmoriz 14y agoI bet nobody here as anything bad to say about the exceptional skills of the github team. However such a huge investment may force them to "overscale" in order to be able to reach the expected return (by the VC). As some communities, e.g. the Ruby community, is approx. based 99% on github, I fully understand and have a strange feeling myself. Time will tell if TPW and AH can work together and make an even bigger success.
- ihodes 14y ago>However such a huge investment may force them to "overscale" in order to be able to reach the expected return (by the VC). But how can we know that's even an issue? There are a hundred hypotheticals here (both positive and negative), and focusing on the ones that would only be the case were Andreessen Horowitz & GitHub unwise companies seems unnecessarily negative. Now, if there were reason to think any of them, that'd be one thing. But we only know there was a huge investment in an awesome company from a great VC firm.
- rmoriz 14y agoMaybe the startup in inhouse-incubator developping new apps in small teams. They clearly have all the required skills to launch a couple of commercial interesting apps per year. However a burn rate of 25m$/year — The VC wants 100 times the return of his investment. That's imho not doable with the current "monolitic" github business model.
- siong1987 14y agoMany people do not realize that Github has an enterprise product called github:enterprise. Aside the money they raised for this round, there are also help comes together from the VC, Andreessen Horowitz in this case. I don't have any experience in enterprise sales. But, from what I know, enterprise isn't a market that the best product always wins. Yes, Github definitely has one of the best products out there. But, they definitely don't have the required experience to push their enterprise product to the market(look at the developers heavy team). The VC will definitely help in this case. Now, look at another similar product in the market, Atlassion, which raised about 60 millions almost two years ago from Accel. That was also after years of bootstrapping from Atlassian itself. 2 years ago, the funding market was definitely not as good as the funding market today. Yet, Atlassian managed to raise 60 millions. So, the 100 millions Github raised today seems reasonable to me.
- pnathan 14y agoenterprise sales are radically different than open source evangelism, b2c sales, and small biz sales. The difference is (literally and metaphorically) there is are suits involved. A few key thoughts which are likely to apply: - Per-customer customizations - $100K+ per sale per customer - 3 month to 3 year sales cycles - Usable on Windows XP and IE6 (most likely). - Certifications/audits (e.g., ISO9001). I can easily see hiring 20-30 guys to sell/consult/customize for the enterprise market.
- lnguyen 14y agoThe product market for enterprise VCS/SCM is also quite a bit different. It's no longer enough to make it easy for developers; you need to be able to provide better access controls/security and start managing the code lifecycle. Github has quite a bit of work ahead of them to be on par with say IBM/Rational ClearCase/ClearQuest or CA Software Change Manager (aka Harvest). Definitely wish them luck.
- pnathan 14y agoWhat do you see as the Clearcase wins vs. github? (I can't think of any, sorry! :) )
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- wavephorm 14y agoWhy can't a company worth nearly a billion dollars just go public? There are thousands of public companies worth less than a billion. So why sell your soul to a VC who could push you into a situation that could make you implode, rather than raise money on an open market and give up less control?
- melvinmt 14y agoGive up less control with a public company, really?
- harryh 14y agoregulatory issues
- rdl 14y agoThe implication of VC is that you'll have to sell or go public eventually anyway, so you might as well take the pain and go directly to public if your revenues support it. The general rule being 5 years of $100mm/yr.
- vulf 14y agoWhen you are just starting out and have no real leverage in the deal, sure. But it sounds like the GitHub guys were the ones holding all the cards in this deal, maybe they made sure the terms of the deal excluded that "general rule".
- rdl 14y agoThere is no way a VC would invest if there weren't SOME exit in the future, or at least a convincing story (independent of veracity) told to make it seem that you're open to an exit. The exit could be M&A (although it would have to be $3-5b to be on-target, and in that range, you need to be able to IPO as a credible alternative when negotiating the M&A).
- zevyoura 14y ago
- zorked 14y agoSo Linus Torvalds has created two billion-dollar industries in his spare time?
- scorpion032 14y agoI count 3. Servers on Linux, Android and Git.
- modarts 14y agoSo, Github taking on some capitalization in order to spur growth in enterprise markets is apparently seen by many on this thread as Github "not keeping it real." (to borrow a "street" analogy.) What exactly would the individuals complaining about this action do differently?
- DigitalSea 14y agoSo much negativity here regarding the capital announcement. Github got to where it is now from now investment and you want to know the reason why they accepted such a large amount of capital (it's rather simple), Github are wanting to infiltrate the corporate sector because that's where the money is. Lets be honest the $10 per month I pay for my Github account isn't making any difference, a corporation paying $1000 per month to exclusively use Github to manage their code? Now that's making a difference. To expand you need cash, take this as a sign that Github is going to expand heavily in every direction. As an avid Githubber I am ecstatic about this, it's a testament to the product and a good sign Github is never going anywhere.
- tatsuke95 14y ago>"a good sign Github is never going anywhere." Right. Because we've never seen a company take a huge VC investment then disappear.
- DigitalSea 14y agoProbably a bit of an overstatement on my part, but how many companies can say they're highly profitable before even getting venture capital? I can't think of any highly profitable companies off of the top of my head that were highly profitable and took VC investment, can you?
- zeruch 14y ago"Little known..." ? Granted, Github isn't eBay, but its hardly obscure, especially within its domain space. The article is otherwise fairly flat about why it might be valued so high. I'm not saying it's fully justified, but the writer clearly did not seem to understand what he was actually writing about.
- SethMurphy 14y agoI am a paying customer and quite torn over what to think. On one hand I feel like my favorite indie band just got signed by a major record label. I will lose the intimacy, or cool factor, I felt as I first enjoyed them. However, isn't it better for all to enjoy them? Especially if they have been signed by the best record company of the bunch? I really have no reason to find this analogy a bad thing. On the other hand I think, why does every company feel the need to take over the world? Can't you be satisfied? At what point have you done enough? I already see Github as a success, and I fear for the founders that true satisfaction will never come. For the most ambitious it probably never does. I do not see this as a good sign for the future of Internet businesses in general. I would rather see more small businesses than fewer large. I think many aspiring hackers have lost a role model today, and VC's everywhere are cheering as a big game trophy has been reeled in.
- andrew_wc_brown 14y agoWith all that money they could buyout their competitors.
- jbarham 14y agoI can't help but think that this investment marks the Pets.com point in this investment cycle. GitHub is essentially a web interface to a single open-source DVCS. The switching costs to using another DVCS such as Mercurial (which I personally prefer) or another Git hosting provider are minimal. There are no barriers to entry since Git is and always will be free. There are very few network effect benefits to using GitHub for paying customers who by definition want to keep their code private. GitHub is a good service and I use it myself, but I'm now increasingly cautious about using it since GitHub are now under serious pressure to deliver pretty spectacular returns to their investors. In the end I think this investment has less to do with GitHub and more to do with the fact that e.g. yields on 10-year Treasuries are currently under 2%. Investors are desperately looking for any decent returns on their money and throwing it a company like GitHub is just a Hail Mary pass.
- emperorcezar 14y agoGo use Bitbucket and tell me it's comparable. It's not. On every level.
- jbarham 14y agoI do use Bitbucket and it does exactly what I need: track changes to my private source code repos and manage issues. Does GitHub do some things better than Bitbucket? Sure, but I don't believe that those differences justify a valuation approaching a billion dollars.
- wildmXranat 14y agoIndeed. I use both and have to say that there's nothing killer about both of them. I have my private projects on bitbucket, but feature wise they are interchangeable.
- chipotle_coyote 14y agoI think Bitbucket is pretty good, and has some advantages--most notably that I can have private repositories there without paying. Yes, this may identify me as a cheapskate, but, well. If anything, I suspect this investment is to make Github more competitive with Bitbucket -- remember, BB's parent company is Atlassian, which has pretty deep enterprise experience they can leverage. You may like GH's issue system better than BB's free one, but a paying BB customer can integrate it seamlessly with Jira and other Atlassian tools.
- zeppelin_7 14y ago"little known" is actually the reality of how the rest of the world sees the tech startup domain. I am sure I can find people even at HP/IBM who will ask "whats a github"?
- tocomment 14y agoI actually forgot github was a business. I'm going to hate to lose their services when they get bought by yahoo or whatever is going to happen :-(
- andyfleming 14y agoMy suspicion is they are going to be putting a lot of effort towards continuing to develop the GUI, for the lack of a better term, for git. IMO, that's what has helped them be successful in the first place. Git is complex and a bit unfriendly at times. They have made it more accessible and it sounds as though their hope is to increase overall engagement in git and version/source management tools. Who knows, they could be working on their own flavor of git.
- curt 14y agoThey could be moving into "other" markets as well. Version controlling for design? Think that'd be a huge market especially with a simple interface.
- perfunctory 14y ago> GitHub tries to become the standard in software coding Standard. Really?
- rgenzon 14y agoWhy raise money? I love Github. But this bothered me. I believe they can pretty much earn a lot from their current subscription plans. Why raise? Githuubbb!
- franzus 14y agoI guess it's time to move away code from github. Now a VC has insights into all private repositories ... a VC that possibly is funding competition.
- statictype 14y agoI hope this doesn't mean everyone now gets free private repos but now with ads served up.
- CoryMathews 14y agoNow I hope they can at least make the watch button work in Opera, maybe even the rest of the BASIC functionality.
- rabidsnail 14y agoSharePoint makes Microsoft billions of dollars per year of revenue (the only concrete number I could find was $2B, but it was from a blog that didn't cite sources). If github can pivot from code sharing to general work sharing, $100M doesn't seem like quite so much money. Edit: $800M/yr in 2007 http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2007/jul07/07-26SPPT800MPR.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2007/jul07/07-26SP...
- adulau 14y agoI just hope that the investment will not force Github to change their revenue model. The current private hosting model seems quite adequate. Especially, I hope they won't become the next Geeknet (http://investors.geek.net/ http://investors.geek.net/) where there are more advertising on the page than hosted FLOSS projects.