News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on StackOverflow. Parent comment

Re:StackOverflow by Permit on Friday March 02, 2012 @09:08AM (#3656596)
I think one of the most common ideas found in posts like Greg's is a gross misunderstanding of Stack Overflow's business model[1] which leads one to speculate that the only way to make a site like SO profitable would be to charge for access to answers. I've been a huge fan of SO for a few years and am happy to see you guys figured out a way to make the site profitable without resorting to a paywall.

[1]http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/79435/what-is-stack-...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:StackOverflow by bryanlarsen on Friday March 02, 2012 @10:58AM (#3657018)
It's profitable now, yes, and probably always will be. But what happens when the site inevitably stagnates but the investors keep demanding revenue growth?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:StackOverflow by drumdance on Friday March 02, 2012 @12:08PM (#3657334)
More sites on different topics. Conferences. Books. Training courses. There are a lot of ways to monetize an enthusiastic audience that wants to learn.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:StackOverflow by sounds on Friday March 02, 2012 @07:11PM (#3658872)
I know I'm just an armchair quarterback, but there's a revolution in moving university courses online. Surely some of that will stick to the stackoverflow/serverfault/superuser crowd...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:StackOverflow by mutagen on Friday March 02, 2012 @01:16PM (#3657622)
Aren't 'the investors' the guys the built it: Joel Spolsky, Jeff Atowood, and originally a small engineering team?

Edit: apparently I should have done just a few more searches before I answered this, it seems that SO did seek venture funding: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/02/14.html

[ Parent | on HN ]