As an independent entity, Github would have had to evolve in a very different way and gone more aggressively after making money, fixing their cost structure, like most of their competitors like Atlassian, Gitlab, and other companies selling developer tools as a SAAS service. So, even though these are comparable companies with comparable offerings, the value proposition is very different. There is no way in hell Gitlab is worth anywhere near what MS just paid for Github.

Being based in silicon valley means Github paid a premium for being there and burned through loads of cash paying for expensive developers, fancy office space, etc. Much cheaper if you are based elsewhere, have less emphasis on wanting to have every OSS project on your platform and more emphasis on selling tools to corporations. This is in a nutshell the strategy for Atlassian and Gitlab. Both also offer freemium layers for OSS but mostly their deal is upselling to their paid offerings. Growth that way is much slower. Though, I would say, Gitlab is now pretty well positioned to succeed where Github struggled.

>Investors were in this for a huge exit

I think these excerpts from your comment and also DHH's "VCs need their pound of flesh" are not helpful for readers on how to analyze the situation. They (maybe unintentionally) taint the discussion.

Github is an entity owned by human beings. The founders included Chris Wanstrath, Tom Preston-Werner, PJ Hyett, and Scott Chacon. Therefore, emphasizing that "investors wanted a big exit" is (inadvertently) omitting that those 4 founders may have also wanted a big exit as well. The DHH quote also misdirects people into thinking the VCs are the bad guys. Instead, we have to remember that the 4 founders have to sign off on the documents at closing to get the $350 million. They had to do presentations to convince investors to give them $350 million.

We have to include the founders' thinking about Github's future and not just outsource our frustration to those "evil VCs". VCs cannot give money to a startup if the founders don't want it. (E.g. Craig Newmark refuses VC money for craigslist.org.)

But obviously, Github was never a charity. It is owned by a group of investors that invested hundreds of millions. An exit in the form of an acquisition or IPO are the only two reasonable happy endings for such a company. This was like this from the day the founders decided to sell ownership to investors. That's what it means to play that game. Usually a first round leads to follow up rounds. Which leads to revenue and ultimately to an IPO. That's the scenario you pitch to investors. In the end it is about shareholder value.

So, normally an acquisition is considered the less ideal outcome of those two. It implies some sort of failure to deliver. Github running without a CEO for a while, reported cash flow issues, and then getting acquired by MS sort of supports that kind of story. I'm assuming the founders did indeed well for themselves. I'm wondering if the same applies to their employee stock option programs since typically those are a bit lower in the pecking order. I don't really know enough about the ownership structure to say anything here but I imagine for most employees ending up working for Microsoft might not have been the dream outcome. And as for most Github users, this probably was a bit of an surprise/shock.

In my case, I'm a paying customer and I see no reason to change that. Love the product so far and MS seem to have the right intentions and strategy to keep it that way.

Fair point if I overstated your perspective on VCs.

I don't know if English is your primary language but if you didn't know, the phrase "sold out" is virtually always used in a derogatory manner. When one writes "<X> sold out to <Y>", the <Y> is the proverbial bad guy. It's also parsed as an insult to both <X> and <Y>. E.g. "It's a shame that guitarist sold out to BadMusic Record Company."

It seemed like "sold out to investors" emotionally taints the VCs as bad actors and poisoned the discussion. (Yes, some VCs are bad and unethical.)

In any case, people should think of VCs as one type of financing option. (Bootstrap is another, but that has its own risks and downsides. Bank loans are another finance option but most startup founders have no collateral.) If you don't want to pressure your company into a big exit, do not talk to VCs.

>So, normally an acquisition is considered the less ideal outcome of those two. It implies some sort of failure to deliver.

Maybe. One of the VCs I saw mentioned that acquisitions are actually the more common exits for B2B companies. Github (enterprise) was more B2B than B2C. If this is the consensus view, both a16z and Sequoia may have anticipated acquisition as the most likely (and successful) outcome at the time they invested.

Taking $350m in VC means you promise to build a stupidly profitable company or sell it to a high bidder. That's the deal, and it's completely understood by anyone in a position to raise nine figures of VC.

From my dealings with VCs my understanding is that they are mainly incentivized by investing and less by the success of those investments because the timelines are half a decade or more and they reap their rewards long before that happens. Basically the job of a VC is to spend money in some fund. It's a very competitive market to be in. Acquisitions are the tool of choice to make sure under-performing investments are not a total loss. A lot of acquisitions and acquihires are effectively investors consolidating their losses. It's common for them to have stakes in both the acquiring and acquired company. In this case, that's probably not what happened of course. But still, the investors are probably quite happy with this outcome.

Not saying they're right or wrong (I think at the very least it's a limited point of view) but that's the argument being made.

You're repeating the same "outsourcing of blame" to VCs that I was trying to short circuit.

VCs as an abstraction are a convenient target but that doesn't mean they are the correct target.

The founders of Github such as Chris Wanstrath, Tom Preston-Werner, et al have agency and autonomy. Why are they specifically not included in our analysis?

In other words, why aren't we saying this:

>CW & TPW's desire for VC money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their request for VC investment

It seems wrong that analysis, blame, and frustration seems to gravitate towards VCs and terminates only at the VCs -- instead of the founders who willingly asked the VCs for the money.

Yes, DHH is against VC money. But maybe CW and TPW don't think about Github exactly the same way as DHH thinks about Basecamp.

It's also the case that, as soon as someone here suggests that a startup doesn't need to operate in that manner, someone--as certainly as the sun will rise in the east--will post Paul Graham's startup definition and argue that you're not a real startup without a growth-first mentality.

In other words, why aren't we saying this:

>Money is the bad guy, because its presence, uneven distribution, cult of worshipers, fungibility, and inherent ties to social power structures are unhealthy influences on the founders of Github

Money by itself isn't the "bad guy"; its a store of value. Like Technology it can be used for good or bad. We have structured our society to reward greed with unbelievable wealth. Like how can someone spend billions of dollars of their wealth? What is the need for someone to own all that wealth? And yet we all take that as given and aspire to it.

At least Microsoft is heavily invested in developer tools, and making them better all the time.

The only issue with BitBucket Server is that it (inexplicably) does not have a commit compare view.

https://jira.atlassian.com/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/BSER...

This is such a massive oversight I have to conclude Atlassian themselves don’t use this product.

It annoys us but not enough to pay GH.

We don’t like GitLab as it was slow when we tested it and the UI wasn’t designed as nicely as the other two (tbh it looks like it was designed by programmers). Something about GitLab feels off and I don’t really know what it is.

If MS changes the cost structure of GH Enterprise we’d probably switch back (haven’t looked into how well it integrates with Jira etc recently).

You can tell it is two very different teams working on it.

Atlassian is now like the Cisco of late 90s an early 2000s, an amalgamation of disparate companies' technologies under the umbrella brand.

Care to explain what you would use it for?

So with GitHub Enterprise when you push multiple commits, the webhook sends a “compare” URL which is a handy look at everything that got pushed.

It’s not possible to do the same thing with BitBucket Server.

You can compare two tags and get the same view. Or two branches. But not two commits.

I’m sure people involved in infrastructure are working on making this better, but I don’t have any visibility into that layer.

For thousands to tens of thousands of users, most folks need data center with 1+n nodes (w/ larger diminishing returns at 8 nodes). There's a few tips and tricks with that, like pointing CI/CD tools to a smart mirror instead of the primary instance and only mirroring specific build projects. Putting smart mirrors in the same physical location as a primary instance could also help reduce the impact of CPU-intensive requests like git fetch or clone.

Another common issue is apps/plugins. Bitbucket 5.9 added a way to get app diagnostics so infra folks can see if there's a long-running process or other weirdness. Vanilla Bitbucket needs about a 1gb heap (java) and with apps, you want around 4gb (give or take).

If you want a longer read to share, this still has some good info despite being 2~ years old: https://developer.atlassian.com/blog/2016/12/how-we-built-bi...

Github and Github Enterprise also fail to provide this view. They do provide a compare view for the triple-dot notation (git diff <commit1>...<commit2>) which actually compares the merge-base of commit1 and commit2 with commit2. It's not possible to do the equivalent of git diff commit1..commit2 in the web interface.

Given that they acquired GH mostly for the Open Source parts, I wouldn't bet on that :/. Enterprise was Github's way of making money and that incentive is kinda reduced, if not eliminated entirely.

We're working on improving that experience. I'd keep a lookout on the next few releases.

I am a fan of Github (and can appreciate their reluctance to deal with Enterprise headaches), but Gitlab was much more engaged and committed to win the contract. Github didn't seem to care whether they got it or not.

"We want to IPO in 2020, specifically on Wednesday November 18. 2020 is five years after the first people got stock options with 4 years of vesting. To IPO we need more than $100m in revenue. To achieve that we want to double Incremental Annual Contract Value (IACV) every year. We focus on an incremental number instead of growth of our Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) because ARR growth is misleading. So far we achieved the goal of doubling IACV in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017."

If you care about such things, anyway.

On the other hand, Atlassian is worth twice what MS just paid for Github.

Gitlab is also VC funded. In fact it seems like you should be _happy_ that Github is no longer owned by the VCs.

Zuck still owns 30% of fb, after (I assume) cashing out some shares. Early execs/investors would probably own 75% or more of the company if you exclude shares sold/cashed out (as opposed to dilution).

This is because that FB never had to raise serious^ money. Put another way, it does not cost money to make a FB. This makes sense, FB is a "regular" website/app and those are cheap to make.

You could say the best site wins, the most competent team. You could say it's a lottery. Either way, one site gets to be the social media site. That's valuable. Money is not required to get there.

Compare this to TSLA, on the other extreme. Musk sold all the shares immediately. Then he borrowed as much as he could. This is because it takes money to build a TSLA. You need factories, parts, a supply chain... expensive.

This means capital is being allocated very inefficienttly. FB could be the same fb (to users) @ a tiny fraction (maybe as low as 1%) of its market value. Twitter too. The money that is going into FB (and into shareholder pockets) does not enable FB to exist, help it do more things or benefit consumers/the economy.

If FB's valuations was much lower than it is, FB could have done the exact same things that it did. If Tesla's valuation was much lower, they would have had less capital to invest and they'd be making fewer cars. A dollar that goes into FB makes FB shareholders richer, with no effect on anything else. A dollar invested into Tesla makes cars.

Classical economics isn't supposed to work like this. The market is supposed to allocate capital where it is needed, at least in broad strokes.

I think that we're dealing with 3 distinct things.

(1)the monopoly-like nature of the digital communications economy is having hugely distortive effects. (2) Centralisation of capital into giant pools means money is flowing into giant "investment vehicles." Big investors = big funds = big companies. (3) we're in the middle of a capital bubble. Returns on doing business (selling stuff to people for money) are not as big as returns on investing (selling stuff to investors for shares and other, non-money money). 1 unit of "capital" is worth more today than yesterday. Ie inflation. This is squeezing out the "real" economic activity.

^scaled to market cap.

Even considering your footnote about market cap, it was actually very expensive to run Facebook.

Facebook started in 2004 and didn't turn a profit until 2009. For more than 5 years, they were burning investors' cash on infrastructure. They quickly burned through the 2005 $12.5 million investment from Accel.

Probably the #1 stress on infrastructure costs was photos. In 2005, Facebook added a feature for people to upload unlimited photos. They soon had more photos than Flickr. As we've seen from other flavor-of-the-month photo bucket websites that crashed & burned by getting overloaded traffic from reddit users, hosting billions of images is not cheap.

In any case, that is still a small portion of their eventual market cap (2%). Also, they had it. It was cheap money. Why not spend it. If they didn't have it, they may have had to create a revenue stream or control costs a little. Running for years before considering revenue or cost control is a luxury.

When you're cashed up, you get spendy.

But, point taken. It's all matter of degrees. It did cost something to make FB. It just wasn't much compared to most companies its size.

The real leverage was not needing money after that A round.

In fact Musk has pretty much suffered through all the regular pain founders suffer through.

I remember watching somewhere on Youtube, during his first start up, they would code on a computer by the night and host the application for their users during the day on the same computer.

In fact, the only reason I'm still on it is because it maintains a network of former friends and contacts that no other service has been able to offer. Make no mistake, Facebook is struggling for relevance in an age where the next generation has already moved on to Snapchat and friends.

I don't think any of them are going to emerge dominant, but if Facebook is smart, it'll use it's remaining heft to build a true platform instead of trying to keep going as an aggregator.

It is the only relevant social network if you want to sell concert tickets, soap or win an election. For hundreds of millions of people FB is the internet, because of "free data" plans in 3rd world countries. It is the only relevant social network in terms of revenue, market cap, M&A and a lot of other things that are unrelated to cultural relevance.

If you believe in that worldview, there is no space for a market with several players. The only goal must be to become the number 1 as fast as possible. See also “From zero to one” by Thiel. Needless to say that this is a depressing worldview, but either they right and then it won’t help to whine about it. Or they ain’t right, but they still gonna operate like it is true. Both sad.

[1] http://a16z.com/2018/05/16/network-effects-positive-feedback...