7 ms·
Github seems to be a pretty good or "safe" investment. Developers have already entrusted them with something as precious as their code itself. They also have pr
by Trufa 11y ago
Github seems to be a pretty good or "safe" investment. Developers have already entrusted them with something as precious as their code itself. They also have pretty clear pathways for being profitable with private repos and so on, I'm not that surprised they are getting a lot of funding.
- hermanmerman 11y agoWell many companies are profitable (actually, it's the only prerequisite to stay alive). And arguably, Github isn't profitable enough to fuel its own growth, or they wouldn't need to take $250m from investors in exchange of shares. The question is: is it worth 2 billion dollars? As a developer my guts say yes, but I have no idea what their numbers look like...
- fosk 11y agoWhen you want to reach a monopoly position, fueling growth with only your profits it's not sustainable. They are getting (cheap) money to scale faster than their profits would allow them to do. It's the same reason why Uber, although making billions of revenue, still raises money: cheap money that boosts growth.
- justincormack 11y agoNot necessarily, they may well be profitable (I thought they are) but they may have wanted to sell some shares to get some value out.
- andruby 11y agoLiquidity for the founders, early employees and previous investors can also be a reason to have another funding round.
- djhn 11y agoWhat kind of situations would result in previous investors looking for liquidity? Assuming it is a trade for equity, it would be counter-intuitive do divest a fast-growing company if you are at least risk-neutral, which VCs should be?
- andruby 11y agoNot VC's. But perhaps friends, family or fools who helped on a seed round. Granted, in the case of Github this seems very unlikely.
- aakilfernandes 11y agoSorry to say, but any time I need a private repo I just head to BitBucket. GitHub provides tremendous value, I hope they find a good way to capture some of it.
- tswartz 11y agoWhen you need a private repo why do you use BitBucket? I've used the private repos on GitHub and found them to work just fine, but I'm new to coding...
- servercobra 11y agoBitBucket private repos are free, GitHub's are not.
- tswartz 11y agoahh.. that makes sense then. :)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- andrewchambers 11y agoBit bucket is free. This is coming from someone who currently pays for a private github account.
- jamesharding 11y agoBitBucket is free for private repos, GitHub is not (unless you have a student promotion active).
- gabeio 11y agoBitbucket is free for private repos if there are <=5 contributors (unless you have a .edu email = unlimited free).
- hueving 11y agoIt's a bit like a social network. There are better technologies out there (e.g. bitbucket), but like you said, developers have chosen Github for now. However, it would be possible for a mass exodus as they turn up the enforcement on the offensiveness bans.
- chucksmash 11y agoWhy do you say bitbucket is a better technology?
- joeyspn 11y agoI'm not sure if "better", but more versatile for sure since it accepts Git and Mercurial.
- matwood 11y agoBeing able to mark certain branches and non-rebaseable is enough to make it better IMO. Perhaps GH has finally added this functionality, but it wasn't there the last time I checked.