According to a report in Business Insider—which, admittedly, has a sketchy reputation—Microsoft recently held talks to acquire GitHub, which was most recently valued at about $2 billion.
But the report cites “people close to the companies,” which suggests multiple sources that are tied, collectively, to both Microsoft and GitHub. And CNBC appears to have confirmed the report, noting that “one person familiar with the discussions [said] that the companies had been considering a joint marketing partnership valued around $35 million, and that those discussions had progressed to a possible investment or outright acquisition.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Business Insider also notes that Microsoft has held acquisition talks over the years with GitHub and that those talks “have grown more serious in the past few weeks.” What’s not clear is whether those talks are still ongoing, a point to which CNBC agrees. In other words, this deal might have come and gone.
That said, some heavy-hitters are in line to run GitHub, regardless of what happens. Google senior VP of ads and commerce Sridhar Ramaswamy is in the running for the CEO job. And Business Insider says that Microsoft’s Nat Friedman, a co-founder of Xamarin, might run GitHub should a Microsoft investment or acquisition occur.
So what’s GitHub?
GitHub is a web-based repository and version control system for software projects. It’s used by developers to store and share software code, and it has emerged as a central tool for developers all of kinds. As part of its evolving stance on interoperability with the outside world, Microsoft first embraced GitHub years ago and it now offers deep integration with the service via its Visual Studio tools.
<p>I've always found it ironic that GitHub is a centralized location to store software versions using a VCS who's major claim to fame was the fact it's decentralized. </p>
<blockquote><a href="#280817"><em>In reply to curtisspendlove:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, it is decentralized by design but the irony is the perceived need of users to involve a common public repository.</p>
<p>This will piss off a lot of FLOSS projects hosted in GitHub. I hope this isn't true. I'd much rather Google buys them. </p>
<blockquote><a href="#280575"><em>In reply to jrickel96:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Google is going to be the least affected by the GDPR because it's the most prepared for it.</p><p><br></p><p>While other companies are scrambling to adhere to the GDPR, Google for almost half a decade, already provided granular privacy controls to all its users.</p><p><br></p><p>In fact, the GDPR changed and changes nothing for Google. </p><p><br></p><p>Meanwhile, most companies don't even have a privacy and security dashboard. And barely have the resources to implement one.</p><p><br></p><p>Heck, Microsoft only recently implemented theirs. And from what I've seen it's still not as granular or exhaustive as what Google provides. </p><p><br></p><p>As for GitHub, the FLOSS community trusts Google way more than Microsoft. Historically speaking Google has always been a generous supporter and proponent of FLOSS. And if we're honest, a better steward of open source projects in light of the fact that they've always open sourced their development tools. </p><p><br></p><p>Microsoft, on the other hand, well, let's just say there are a work in progress.</p>
<blockquote><a href="#280621"><em>In reply to mystilleef:</em></a></blockquote><p>Regardless of how much preparation Google thinks they have made for the GDPR an 8.8 billion dollar lawsuit for violating the GDPR hardly puts Google in the position of being "least affected".</p>
<blockquote><a href="#280628"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>You mean the frivolous lawsuit sponsored and funded by Google's competition. </p><p><br></p><p>It won't be long before other tech companies are targeted. I expect Microsoft and Apple to be hit next. </p><p><br></p><p>Again GDPR is going to be nuisance for everybody but Google. It has the resources to fight this nonsense. It's not their first rodeo.</p>
<blockquote><a href="#280629"><em>In reply to mystilleef:</em></a></blockquote><p>Whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not is a matter of opinion but it's absurd to claim that it won't at a minimum be a nuisance for Google. It's worth remembering that some of the lawsuits that resulted from Microsoft's anti-trust problems were frivolous as well, but MS lost anyway. </p>
<blockquote><a href="#280770"><em>In reply to jrickel96:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>You're misinformed. </p><p><br></p><p>As a result, unfortunately, it's pointless to continue the conversation. I'd be wasting my time explaining common knowledge and publicly available information. </p><p><br></p><p>Needless to say, Google does not sell private information. </p>
<blockquote><a href="#280577"><em>In reply to pderosa:</em></a></blockquote><p>If the result was that somebody came up with a more well thought out VCS, that would be good. Linus is obviously a smart guy, but git is more complicated than it needs to be. Even smart developers can benefit from a design review.</p>
<blockquote><a href="#280661"><em>In reply to nbplopes:</em></a></blockquote><p>I think it's worth remembering that neither git nor github existed for the majority of time that open source has existed. A little diversity wouldn't hurt IMO.</p>
<blockquote><a href="#280685"><em>In reply to glenn8878:</em></a></blockquote><p>GitHub isn't "a good business", Bloomberg reports it had revenues of $98 million and lost $66 million for 9 months where they could get the data in 2016. The valuation off those numbers was $2B, which is like another way of being behind the 8 ball, you have to find someone willing to >$2B+ for VCs while your business metrics justify nothing of the sort, before any founders and employees get a penny. Another silly SF area unicorn. And oh, they have now been looking for a CEO for the past 9 months. No takers.This is almost literal definition of a bad business. </p><p>They are obviously looking for a savior. And these days Silicon Valley companies that need that and still want to get paid have one preferred address of a company (desperately?) looking to get good with Silicon Valley. This particular seller with it's developers developers developers customers is almost like too on the nose. But the customers who have been subsidized all along by VC money and are about to be subsidized by Microsoft shareholder money will only bitch and moan. What else are they gonna do. </p>