GitHub Got Silly Rich. Next Step: 'Make More Awesome'
businessweek.com
businessweek.com
To me, "silly rich" would suggest they're immensely profitable, which is rather unlikely since they probably wouldn't seek more investment if they were.
I m sure they are profitable.
Unlimited repo's for teams of less than 5 compared to GitHubs pricing model for private repositories is a strong challenge.
Throw in that BitBucket is Atlassian backed and they can afford to subsidise BitBucket to sell their other tools (though I would observe that BitBucket does not do heavy sales tactics at all).
I actually prefer bitbucket to github day to day (I have about a dozen repo's with them) and they have excellent support for mercurial as well.
Obviously GitHub is the major git hosting solution for open source projects and yes I have a github account and yes I visit the site as much as I do bitbucket but mostly to pull repo's, check issues and read documentation.
At work we use BitBucket because of the unlimited private repos, and we've got a fairly good setup built on it. Every office I know either keeps their repo hosted, or uses BitBucket. I've only known one office that uses GitHub, and due to the nature of their work they keep their stuff public.
It's not even up for debate anywhere I work. BitBucket, or a private hosted repo is the only choice to make.
Another thing is that if you're using open source products then they're likely on github. I agree that both platforms have a general feature parity but if you're going to interact with these projects often enough then it's better to stay on a single platform and avoid the context switch. Personally this only is already worth the $50-100 that our company is paying.
You can see that I am biased but something I would also like to point out: on more than one occasion github has prompted me to open-source things. When you reach your repo limit you're faced with a choice that you don't have with unlimited repos. There's a case where you don't want to think about it and just want to keep working as usual but for me space constraint is what keeps my home tidy.
The context switch is fairly minimal, underneath it is just git with a pretty web-ui.
The scenario for up-sell is absolutely fine, if you have less than 5 developers it's free, if you have more than that you start to pay based on number of developers, this is both more rational (you are paying for users not number/size of repo's) and easier to quantify.
In my opinion GitHub's cleverest move was making it free for open source repo's thereby building a good community of influential developers around their product from day one, this does give them a significant lead but it's not insurmountable (I'm old enough to remember when the first thing you did when you wanted the source code for an open project was head straight over to sourceforge) particularly as moving most (small) projects from github to bitbucket (or another competitor) is one git push.
Perhaps, but it's also likely that consumers are not Atlassian's primary target audience. They make most of their money selling JIRA, Confluence, Bamboo etc to companies and large enterprises.
Getting individual developer's hooked on free access to Bitbucket for personal projects is a great way to get those developers to agitate for using Bitbucket within their company.
Maybe I am atypical, but I really like Github :)
Edit: Also open source projects will not start to pay github, but private projects might grow and will start paying for BitBucket
No, it didn't, we were just lazy.
My guess: they're gearing up for an IPO. Maybe not for a couple years, but they see their market size as being big enough to go public, and they want a prominent financial backer in their corner when they do. That's the usual reason why profitable companies take investment. Microsoft famously eschewed all venture funding until a mezzanine round right before they went public, which was a.) so they could vet their investment bank and develop a relationship with them before it really mattered and b.) so said investment bank would have an incentive to hype up the stock and get the highest possible price at IPO time.
I think they mean "been around for 4 years before taking funding last July" which would equate to 5 years.
The current status quo is that a bank creates money out of thin air, which they can then profit off. This money they create _might_ represent value, but only after the loanee does some work for the debt. Therefore, all interest payment on such created money are essentially a "tax" the banks leeches off the people who did the real work.
A simple example would be without money you barter which is also a manipulation of language expressed through physical items. You need this I need that so we exchange. With money the equation becomes you need something, and you can buy it with money, here is some money, now give me what I want. The intermediary form of this was gold, because people can agree that gold is reliable. We replace that with simple language backed up by force, a dollar. A piece of paper that initially will stand in for gold to establish its value, but eventually will stand in for itself. Eventually we replace this with something like Bitcoin, no coercion simply an agreement in language justified through a market.
Quid pro quo.
"Gold is money. Everything else is credit". - J.P. Morgan
> To me, "silly rich" would suggest...
How about discussing this?
> A big chunk of the $100 million has been earmarked
> for... [opening] its collaboration tools up beyond the
> software kingdom. The company has already seen
> designers, legal teams, and public relations pros using
> its technology. "It has not been optimized for those
> things yet, but it works for them," says Preston-Werner."He".
We should not, implicitly or explicitly, promote the idea that to be a coder you are a man. Even if it is the case that more men are in CS than not, it is not causal to success in CS. However, creating fake self-doubt and questioning on issues that are not material to success in CS is causal to people dropping CS.
I don't think that in this case the author is making any comment (explicitly or implicitly) about who is or should be coding.