Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire Coding Site GitHub (bloomberg.com)

Bloomberg reports:
Microsoft Corp. has agreed to acquire GitHub Inc., the code repository company popular with many software developers, and could announce the deal as soon as Monday, according to people familiar with the matter. GitHub preferred selling the company to going public and chose Microsoft partially because it was impressed by Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private information. Terms of the agreement weren't known on Sunday. GitHub was last valued at $2 billion in 2015.

GitHub is an essential tool for coders. Many corporations, including Microsoft and Alphabet Inc.'s Google, use GitHub to store their corporate code and to collaborate. It's also a social network of sorts for developers. While GitHub's losses have been significant -- it lost $66 million over three quarters in 2016 -- it had revenue of $98 million in nine months of that year.

On Friday, it was reported that Microsoft was in talks with GitHub about an acquisition. Now it seems like it's actually happening.

Update: Our sister site, SourceForge, has weighed in. Here is a tool that will import your GitHub project to SourceForge.
Update #2: Already, we are seeing plenty of backlash over this news. One user has started a petition to stop Microsoft from buying GitHub.
Update #3: It's official. Microsoft has acquired GitHub for a whopping sum of $7.5B.

11 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Why are unprofitable companies worth so much? by StandardCell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It remains to be seen how much Microsoft has paid for GitHub, but why pay anything if they're unprofitable?

    I keep seeing the same behavior that happened during the first dotcom boom - companies valued at stupid multiples of "earnings", including what are technically negative earnings, being valued far in excess of their worth. A company is only worth its future profits discounted at the rate of the next best investment of that money, minus its initial and ongoing investments. The longer it takes to return a profit, the exponentially more difficult it is to recover the initial investment. Only a fundamental change or an external factor like currency inflation can distort that picture into a supposedly rosy one.

    Perhaps GitHub can have some of its cost structures reduced by riding on Microsoft's coattails. Perhaps there's some breakthrough that Microsoft can see with them, although I don't think there's a tremendous synergy there. The basic model has been there before (SourceForge), and it could technically be duplicated again by someone else. Many developers/repos will simply bail due to Microsoft's history of changing business terms. Heck, they rolled "Teams" out which is supposed to compete with Slack.

    More power to the current owners of GitHub if they get bought out, as it's a great tool. I just think P.T. Barnum really was right, and I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop in this latest boom.

    1. Re:Why are unprofitable companies worth so much? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It remains to be seen how much Microsoft has paid for GitHub, but why pay anything if they're unprofitable

      The classic Economics answer, is that you believe that it is unprofitable because it is poorly managed, and that you can do a better job of managing it to profitability. This usually means that you can integrate it with your existing businesses, streamline, and cut a lot of costs. This also usually includes massive layoffs at the purchased company, accompanied by folks jumping ship to look elsewhere for a job, before they are eventually fired.

      IBM's ThinkPad business was unprofitable when Lenovo bought it. Lenovo turned it around into profitability.

      Of course, there are often other ulterior motives. Microsoft bought Nokia because they thought Nokia built hardware would help Windows Phone be a success.

      Microsoft was wrong. So they did what any other rational investor would do . . . cut your losses and let it die.

      We'll see in about a year what Github's fate is . . . profitability . . . or death . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re: Why are unprofitable companies worth so much? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Microsoft just bought developer mindshare. And, I'll bet there is a behind-the-scenes migration of GitHub's hosting to Azure before 2019 as they can just use unused cloud compute resources that would be idle cycles otherwise to host.

      What does that do to the cost model?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re: Why are unprofitable companies worth so much? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The cost model is you will see github called VIsual Studio Github 365 online. Sure you can use the web interface for free like Office 365 but the real goodies requires Visual Studio or Visual Studio Code if you are poor or on Linux.

      We will see gVFS Git Virtual File System and backup utilities for larger projects and online collobaration tools added ... but they require a Visual Studio subscription to turn these on etc. But for simple things it will remain free.

      This is what happened to LinkedIN. It is still free but if you want to post your resume or make networking connections with customers or talk to HR it costs $30 a month for the pro version etc.

      Since MS submitted GVFS to Linus he can fork it and offer the same service for free with another provider if this becomes a problem.

  2. Re: So glad by Boh00711 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why does everyone expect digital/virtual goods and services to be free? And then those same people flip shit about the advertising and sales of submitted and extrapolated data about them. The resources to host this stuff, and do so reliably, quickly, and securely, is not cheap. The cost to continue improving it is not cheap. Explain to me, please, why you expect a whole lot of something for absolutely nothing.

  3. Re:Bwahahaahahah by whipslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Completely different owners did that. We got rid of all that nonsense.

  4. Re:Go fuck yourself, SourceForge by whipslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's wrong with you?

  5. Re:Uh yeah... no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Update: Our sister site, SourceForge, has weighed in.

    Hey cool. The Digg of source code repositories still thinks it’s relevant.

    They aren't relevant yet. This is the second chance. One of GitLab, Sourceforge, BitBucket or a completely new entrant is going to end up the winner. The question is, which one? Let's start the bidding war.

    I believe the opening bid is GitLab with, "you can get a reasonable open source version of the bits of our web site you care about but without the statistics and other commercial features". Who's going to raise us a statistics module?

  6. Re:Well tat certainly explains this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's the business model, inquiring minds want to know?

    How long until you need a microsoft account to use github?

    How long until commercial customers also need to subscribe to Office 365?

    Given other activity by Microsoft, I wonder if Software Freedom Conservancy needs to step in and protect the Git mark.

    (https://www.git-scm.com/about/trademark section 2.3)

  7. Re:Go fuck yourself, SourceForge by whipslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thank you my friend. Such is the world.

  8. Re:SourceForge by whipslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Still over a million daily users, so we're gonna do right by them