Microsoft + GitHub

Posted on June 4, 2018 by Paul Thurrott in Dev, Microsoft with 72 Comments

From left to right: Chris Wanstrath, Satya Nadella, and Nat Friedman

It’s official: Microsoft has agreed to acquire GitHub. And for a staggering sum of $7.5 billion.

“Microsoft is a developer-first company, and by joining forces with GitHub we strengthen our commitment to developer freedom, openness, and innovation,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said in a prepared statement. “We recognize the community responsibility we take on with this agreement and will do our best work to empower every developer to build, innovate and solve the world’s most pressing challenges.”

GitHub is described as the world’s leading software development platform, and it currently served over 28 million developers worldwide. But why would Microsoft spend such a heady sum for what is essentially plumbing?

Simple: In this age of competing cloud and mobile platforms, many of which it does not control, Microsoft needs to get its superior software development tools and services in front of more developers. GitHub users can, of course, continue to use whatever tools they prefer. But Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code, and other Microsoft developer offerings will now be tailored to work natively with the service.

As part of the deal, Microsoft’s Nat Friedman, a Xamarin co-founder, will take over as GitHub CEO. And GitHub’s outgoing CEO, Chris Wanstrath, will become a Microsoft technical fellow and report to Scott Guthrie. GitHub will become part of Microsoft’s Intelligent Cloud business segment once the acquisition is complete.

News of Microsoft’s acquisition of GitHub first leaked last week.

 

Tagged with

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (80)

80 responses to “Microsoft + GitHub”

  1. Jim Lewis

    typo at end of next to last paragraph: should be "... will noW be tailored..."

  2. dcdevito

    I just don't see the real value for Microsoft here, other than just keeping it afloat since it was in financial trouble for a long while. OSS developers aren't going to like this one bit, for the few that I've mentioned this to since the weekend all their responses have been unanimous - and not positive. This just has bad vibes written all over it, most notably the fact that GitHub's origins lie heavily in Git, created by Linux Torvalds. This may turn out to be a really bad PR move, especially given that its designed to be "for developers", but if/when OSS devs do a mass exodus away from GitHub this is only going to make this deal look very bad. Look at Satya's three acquisitions: Minecraft, LinkedIn and now GitHub. Did they acquire Xamarin under him too? I can't remember, but seriously how'd that turn out? Whoops. They're real head scratchers.

    Go home Satya you're drunk

    • unfalln

      In reply to dcdevito:

      If there is a mass exodus, history says it will be over functionality rather than simply a bad taste for the owner. Microsoft needs to tread carefully, but that's not an impossible task. They've shown they can go either way.

  3. IanYates82

    With all of the hand wringing I saw on Twitter about this, I wonder if them putting Nat Friedman in as CEO will put some minds at ease.

    What many didn't realise, and instead went back to their 90's Microsoft perceptions, is that Github hasn't made a profit and was already looking for a CEO.

    So I see this is as a pretty good outcome for all. Microsoft was relying on GitHub more and more, and are a good steward of things these days (see Minecraft, and, despite recent troubles, Skype - losing the peer to peer). GitHub was finding it harder to stand alone forever. They could've been acquired by Google, Amazon or something left-field like Slack, or even worse.. Oracle :) Of all of those, I think Google or Amazon would've been OK but whilst both are huge in software development, it's not their #1 thing.

  4. pderosa

    OK... what I posted was extremely inoffensive. Is the moderation here that severe?

  5. PeteB

    Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.



  6. Tony Barrett

    MS buying GitHub is absolutely, totally terrible for the open-source developer industry, and I could see a mass exodus away from GitHub because of it. All trust in GitHub would be instantly lost. It's a sad, sad day when money has talked - and developers will walk.

    If MS are trying to get devs interested in Windows, UWP and/or PWA by doing this, they will be sorely disappointed. This could be a mistake on the scale of MS buying Nokia. MS will data-mine the cr*p out of GitHub now, and totally ruin what started out as a platform written by devs for devs.

  7. Daekar

    So... Github wasn't making any money. I can see how this would benefit them. What does Microsoft get out of this, exactly?


    Devs won't leave Github unless MS messes with it too much.

  8. Winner

    "GitHub 365 Professional for Teams..."

  9. ponsaelius

    Probably a good buy if Microsoft want to rebuild it's developer focus after UWP and it's other dead ends.


    I hope it works for them.

  10. rmlounsbury

    On the surface this seems like a good move for Microsoft. Unfortunately, it already seems like some developers are jumping ship and might be using a Microsoft buyout as an excuse when it may have been other already percolating issues with the platform and the MS ownership is just a great reason to jump.


    I think if Microsoft plays its cards right and keeps GitHub as an external business managed by it's own management group they can keep the perception that Microsoft owns the code and could snoop. But leveraging the ownership to deeply link it's own developer tools making usage of GitHub that much easier with Microsoft's development platform gives it a strong play for a full top-to-bottom eco-system of developer tools.


    Based just on the level of utilization Microsoft had with GitHub alone makes their purchase of GitHub make sense. They might as well own the platform that is pretty core to the organization as it is.

  11. rameshthanikodi

    As long as Github remains the same, I think developers have nothing to worry about. Hopefully MS sends the correct signal.

  12. skane2600

    Since when could any VCS be considered a "development platform", let alone the "leading" one. How could one test if their program was "github" compatible? HaHa

    • curtisspendlove

      In reply to skane2600:

      It is absolutely a developer platform. A *lot* of development workflows use Github as the sun which all other processes orbit.


      It isnt the only game in town though. And honestly GitLab has been making huge steps forward the last couple years. They also have a better pricing structure for individuals and small business.


      Bitbucket is also great, though their UI is slower in general. My preference is still Github though.


      I’m also a fan of MSs developer offerings. It’s their consumer story that needs work. Though I’m not sure they care much about their consumer lines anymore.

  13. Bill Russell

    Its not like Nadella is there saying "muahhhahhah we will embrace extend and existinguish github and open source paving the way for our proprietary world domination!!"


    A company will naturally go in whatever direction aligns with the needs of the company and the business interests - profit making - I'm sure everyone means well at this stage.


    But MS has a history of being driven by heavy handed and clumsy decision making. So far I think Minecraft is better off, because you can play amongst all devices except playstation (or so I've heard). but that's only because they are in such a position where they Have to. If MS was as dominant as 15 yrs ago, they would not have made that possible.


    Github is not the sole thing that defines open source. You can move your repos elsewhere if you want. In fact this news caused me to notice that Bitbucket has 5-user free private repos, unlike Github.


    • CeeTee

      In reply to Bill_Russell:
      MS has no need to change github in order to benefit from it. Making your code public always meant that MS can use it too, but owning the infrastructure makes that process just so much more efficient. MS are heavily invested in AI and having direct access to a resource such as github would be enormously valuable to their machine-learning efforts.


  14. curtisspendlove

    The really interesting part here to me is the CEO shakeup, and Chris being a MS Technical Fellow. I wonder the reasoning behind this.


    I also wonder how much Electron (core for VS Code) plays into this.


    Update: also was reminded that Atom is a GitHub property as well...it would be strange if they continued separate efforts on two code editors.

  15. vann

    With GitHub Pages Microsoft now also has its own webhosting platform. I wonder what will happen to this part.

    Or, if Microsoft will push their metro design over Twitter bootstrap. Perhaps they'll even open source it.

    Either way, having a GitHub account since around its beginning, I'm happy Chris will receive a massive amount off money because of this deal.

  16. JacobTheDev

    Interested to see what this does to GitHub's coding app, Atom. I use it every day and love it, would hate to see it go. I've tried VS Code, and it's just not for me.


    I'm optimistic that this acquisition is going to go well, but at the same time pretty nervous. GitHub is hugely important for modern websites and apps, if they screw this up, it could be disastrous.

  17. Jhambi

    Linus must be proud.

  18. SilentHero117

    That is a staggering amount indeed! Kudos to Chris Wanstrath for getting nearly four times the value of GitHub today!


    This is another step in Satya's journey to transform the image of Microsoft from the Gates-Ballmer era. I personally like it, but I'm not sure it's enough for developers to trust this company if it ever will be. They will need to tread carefully with this acquisition for the next year or two. I personally think that Nat Friedman is an excellent choice to take the reins of GitHub based on his leadership with Xamarin.

  19. dontbe evil


    good job, hopefully nutella will not shutdown it like Kinect, windows mobile, lumias, groove...



  20. Bart

    MS bought Github for 75M shares. Based on outstanding shares, bargain

  21. Hal9000

    I hope they won't screw it up, like they did with Skype, Wunderlist, Sunrise, Accompli...

  22. Lateef Alabi-Oki

    Oh well. Guess I'm moving to GitLab. And no 3 years of Microsoft dabbling in FLOSS does not mean we forget the 20 years of terror they inflicted against the same community.


    I'm glad Microsoft found Jesus. And I think they can be forgiven for the atrocities they brought upon the FLOSS community for decades. But that doesn't mean we forget the core of who they were, and possibly still are.


    The open source community now needs a truly completely open alternative for GitHub. This is where Google can and should help.


    I hope Google buys GitLab and centers open source, PWA, GCP, and Android development around it. GitLab says they'll be moving their infrastructure from Azure to GCP anyways. So that's a good start.


    Most open source projects have stated they'll be moving away from GitHub.



    • skane2600

      In reply to mystilleef:

      Microsoft unfortunately reacted defensively as open source began to become mainstream with RMS and supporters stating that proprietary software was evil. So there was bad blood on both sides. Perhaps if FLOSS supporters had been less political in the early days, it might have gained support faster. I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that MS was responsible for any "atrocities" against FLOSS.

      • Lateef Alabi-Oki

        In reply to skane2600:


        It is not an exaggeration in the least bit.


        They harassed, threatened, sued, patent-trolled, discredited, and orchestrated elaborate campaigns, especially indirect lawsuits, against the FLOSS community and businesses that used open source software.


        I lived through it all. It's convenient now that FLOSS has won, they now love it. Yeah, right.

        • skane2600

          In reply to mystilleef:

          Just to select one accusation you make, which businesses who used open source software were subjected to one of the negative terms you listed?

          • Lateef Alabi-Oki

            In reply to skane2600:


            Google the following:


            - Halloween documents leak


            - Scroogled campaign


            - Microsoft SCO campaign


            - Microsoft Get The Facts campaign


            There are more, but you can do your research.


            About every major Linux vendor has been threatened or sued by Microsoft over Linux patents. They still patent-troll Android vendors to this very day.


            Their most brazen campaign came when they funded SCO to get the courts to conclude that they owned the copyrights to Unix. They'd then abuse those rights to claim copyright infringement against Unix/Linux vendors and exploit them in the process. SCO pursued legal action against IBM, Novell, and even Linux customers.


            Before Microsoft was busted by the EU, Windows OEMs were threatened if they sold computers running anything other than Windows. There were consequences if they didn't adhere. This effectively made Microsoft a monopoly.


            They've also done shit like introducing "secure boot" to prevent computers from being able to install Linux.


            They're the biggest patent trolls on the market, and almost all their attacks have been against vendors that use Linux or open source.


            There's a reason the FLOSS developers and community went out of their way to develop tools, frameworks, and whole operating environments around Microsoft products.


            It's a testament to their work, that today, you don't need Windows for any kind of relevant development (the only exception is Games). As a matter of fact, Windows only relevance lies in running legacy apps.


            It also the reason the FLOSS community embraced Google. We knew through the open Web Google would be Microsofts Achilles hill. Google also knew this. So they effectively and successfully leveraged the ethos of the open Web and FLOSS against a Microsoft.


            So there's a history lesson for you.

    • William Kempf

      In reply to mystilleef:

      Dabbling? They have more code in GitHub then anyone else.

    • jrickel96

      In reply to mystilleef:

      Most? Sure they have. I'm sure you've done a comprehensive poll.


      GCP stands for Google Crap Platform. I use it. It's trash compared to Azure, AWS, and IBM. We have to move from it because it scales so badly. Part of that is because Google's databases are slow and bad just as their VMs are. Their VMs are the slowest to adapt as use climbs. That's the central problem with Google - good basic consumer facing stuff that shows a lot of cracks when volume climbs. It's why IBM has been making large gains and GCP is likely to fall into fourth place soon.


      Google is such a failure of a company beyond its core search and advertising business. Nothing has stuck and as privacy concerns go up, ad revenues will decline. Google will be a shell of its current self in five years. It'll be around, but at less than half of its present size.


      Read the Google terms of service agreement before you host with them and know that anything not open source you post, they have complete ability to use without any licensing.


      My guess is that a small number of open source projects will actually move and that Google itself will not move.

      • Lateef Alabi-Oki

        In reply to jrickel96:


        That's funny. Because last I checked there were still no alternatives to Google's database offerings like Spanner or Big Query.


        And when it comes to container/VM technologies, Google is still unparalleled when it comes to deploying and scaling Kubernetes, the de facto open source standard for container development and deployment.


        Hmmm...I wonder why. Oh that's right, they fucking created it. So much for your baseless theories.

        • jrickel96

          In reply to mystilleef:

          RDS, MySQL. MS SQL. Where you been? I also use low latency DBs and both Firebase and Firestore are way behind Cosmos and Dynamo. Athena and Panoply are solid alternatives to Big Query, both are faster. Google's Analytics platform is also far less accurate than the offerings from MS, Amazon, IBM, and Adobe.


          Google is worse with Kubernetes than AWS. Azure is better with it as well. I've used them all and work with corporate partners that do. They are all leaving Google because of reliability and privacy concerns.


          I'm happy for how angry you are.


          Here's the problem. GitLab will get sold to some big company too. Scaling to a large size means you need outside investment and none of these repositories have shown they can make money.


          So they created it? Often times the creators are outstripped by those that come later.


          Google has failed to show it can make money outside of its core business of ad sales. They have only developed open source content as a means of attempting to push data their way for ad targeting. That's what they do.


          Open source people love Google because they offer a lot for "free" in exchange for getting all their private data for ad sourcing. They will change as privacy concerns mount.


          As I said, when you PAY for these things as a business, as I do, Google's services are lacking when you scale them up. They DO work well for a small group using them, they work terribly when you need to scale them across countries, continents, and oceans. I have to do that and GCP does not work well with that.


          There's a reason why AWS and Azure are both well ahead of Google in Cloud. Google SHOULD be in the lead considering who they are, but they are about to be passed by IBM because they are so terrible at scale and figuring out how to break out of their ad driven structure.


          As ad revenues dry up, Google will struggle and severely cut open source development. You heard it here. As I said, in five years, Google will be a shell of its current self. They have yet to find any other sustainable revenue source for their company beyond ads and they need private data for their targeting to be most effective. Privacy concerns are anathema to their business model and they have not shown any ability to create any new, successful, profitable revenue streams.

          • skane2600

            In reply to jrickel96:

            I don't know if your predictions will come to pass, but I think a lot of Google's use of open source was done with the attitude like "We could develop our own OS that was just as useful on the web as Linux, but why bother when Linux is available now and doesn't require us to pay a license fee". In other words, Google could have been just about as sucessful without open source as it is with it - they would have just had to spend a little more time and money to get there.

            • jrickel96

              In reply to skane2600:

              All of Google's ideas come from gathering information and pushing platforms that allow them to do it. This allows more sophisticated ad targeting, pushing up the price per click. 85-90% of all Google revenues comes from ads, depending on the quarter. Not sales in Google Cloud. Not G-Suite. Ads. All analysts are concerned about Google's ability to produce long term growth with increased interest from the EU and DC on privacy laws. They'll still sell ads, but not be able to target as effectively. That could either force a massive barrage of ads to try to keep revenues up or a retraction.


              Google's cloud revenues only recently got to a billion a quarter.


              In the last reports quarter, Microsoft LED all Cloud providers in revenue - $6 Billion. Amazon was just under that. IBM was at $4.2 Billion. Toyota, UPS, Coca-Cola are all making major shifts to Azure and trusting MS for their AI. IBM is making huge gains.


              I have said it repeatedly, but the two BIGGEST cloud players in five years will be Microsoft and IBM. Amazon will give ground and has their own privacy issues - and no one knows how much they subsidize AWS.


              Google didn't want to release their Cloud numbers after MS, Amazon, and IBM released theirs. That indicates nothing to crow about. Google is falling behind in Cloud. They're also failing in smart devices as Nest loses money in the hundreds of millions.


              Google is a huge failure at everything except their core ads and search. Android only makes money due to filtering data to Google for ads and search.


              Google is hoping to lure MS Enterprise customers, but Enterprise just doesn't trust them. They've picked off a few with promises of lower prices, only to have them be deeply dissatisfied. I know of some very large G-Suite deployments that are switching back to Office 365 after the contract is up - they feel like they were sold a bill of good by Google.


              It all comes down to ads. If privacy laws restrict personal data, per ad revenues will decrease. This will hurt Google dramatically and force them to stop subsidizing failures with that money. That means more for G-Suite, more for Cloud, more for Nest thermostats, more for Google Home, and less investment in Android.


              Do not be surprised if large parts of Google are spun off or sold off long term to allow it to refocus on its core business. The Quarter ending in Sept will be interesting. Pay attention to Google's quarterly and see if they continue to make huge gains YoY. If not, that will reveal the impact of GDPR from Europe and indicate that they're in for a rough road if privacy laws become the norm.

              • Lateef Alabi-Oki

                In reply to jrickel96:


                I'd like to have whatever you're smoking.


                The self-driving industry alone is a trillion dollar business.


                I'll give you a minute to let that sink in.


                Guess who's at least 10 years ahead of the pack? That would be Google's sibling company, Waymo.


                Google, and by proxy Alphabet, hasn't even begun to monetize 75% of their potential revenue generating products and services. Primarily, because they don't fucking need to.


                Google practically owns the Web. They own Mobile. They own AI. They own Cloud Services. They have the best cloud platform infrastructure. They're the most divested major tech company among the big 5.


                And they have barely even attempted to flex the muscle as far as being desperate to monetize countless of their innovations. "Why?", you ask. Because Larry and Sergey never gave a shit about shareholders. Their focus has always been talent and tech. The fact they make billions from having the best Ad Tech on the web is just a side bonus.


                So, tell me. How do you manage to convince yourself that this company is on the brink of its demise?


                As I've said numerous times, the GDPR only consolidated Google's and Facebook's powers and effectively made them gatekeepers. The people who are going to suffer from GDPR are small companies and every other tech company don't have the same data gathering capabilities and resources that Google has.


                Google was more prepared for GDPR than anyone. They were so prepared for GDPR that Google already implemented the details of the law more than 5 years ago and barely needed a tweak to fit the EU's proposal.


                Meanwhile, everyone else is still scrambling to make sense of the law. Many don't have the resources to implement it. And new competitors to Google are effectively locked out.


                Your theories about Google's demise are fantastically amusing, but also completely misguided.

                • skane2600

                  In reply to mystilleef:

                  A "trillion dollar business" requires a trillion dollars of revenue. Investor money is not revenue, Let's at least wait until these self-driving companies actually have a product for sale before we pretend to know how big their businesses are. The regulatory and liability impact hasn't even begun to be examined.

                • jrickel96

                  In reply to mystilleef:

                  The self driving car is a $0 business right now. Not only that, surveys show over 60% of people are not interested and don't trust self driving.


                  Being ready for GPDR does not mean you will not be affected by it. I think you don't understand what GPDR does.


                  GPDR means people have to opt in to allow personal data to be sent to Google (or anyone) for ad targeting AND have to be informed concerning what it is being used for, etc.


                  So it adds a cost: you have to implement infrastructure to ensure you don't violate the rules or you will face massive fines (Google and FB got hit with $8.8 billion in lawsuits on day one - and those numbers can grow - maybe they fend them off, or maybe Google not only has to pay billions in anti-trust fines, but billions in lawsuit settlements. Between fines and lawsuits, Google is likely going to have to pay out more than MS just did for GitHub).


                  So you add overhead to ensure you don't violate, BUT you also need to lawyer up for when you do get sued.


                  Then you have to deal with loss of targeted ad revenue. 100% of people in the EU ARE NOT going to opt in. Again, you do not understand what GPDR does. It's not just about reporting, it's about getting permission to serve targeted ads and share your data.


                  I work with clients that ask for permission to do direct email and ad service. I have data based on roughly one million samples. The average rate of people saying "yes" is 25-30%, but in the business it is thought that acceptance for larger ad targeting will be lower because they want so much more. Estimates right now are that 15-20% will say "yes".


                  Let's say 20% say yes. You now continue to get full ad revenue streams from only 20% of your prior customer base. The rest have to be served more general ads and those revenues are significantly less.


                  Targeted ads get roughly 3 times the revenue of non-targeted ads.


                  So let's say that Google would do $10 billion in ad revenue as an example under the old system. Let's put GPDR rules in effect globally. That $10 billion in revenue is reduced to about $4.5 billion under GPDR rules.


                  It basically slices revenues in half. Google is still profitable, but not nearly as big. Profit percentage also likely declines, so that $7 Billion profit from last quarter becomes $3.5 Billion or less.


                  How do you think Google's stock and market cap will react to profits getting sliced like that? The problem exists for Facebook too.


                  And how would Google run those self driving cars? $500 a month service in addition to the car payment? They have to fund it and not cover for it with ads.


                  As I said, as profits are sliced, Google will not be able to subsidize GCP or G-Suite. Those prices will go up to compensate. So the prices for VM usage, etc will go up. Drive storage pricing will increase. G-Suite prices will go up. Google Photos might not be free anymore, at least not with unlimited storage if you let them scale the images down - because that creates privacy issues.


                  Google is against privacy because they make money by violating it. However, pressure is going to come on them and others like Facebook to play by some rules. Microsoft is deploying GPDR globally. That will put pressure on Amazon and Google (Amazon stands to lose on GPDR as well, but not as much).


                  Again, look for Microsoft and IBM to be the leaders in Cloud and AI over the next five years. Google will return to being what it was ten years ago. They may decide to abandon Chrome and Android if they can't get enough data to benefit them. I could see them spinning off Android. Google will pull back. They'll still be profitable, but the privacy issues will limit them and they will end up just being an ad and search company once more. Shareholders will demand it.

          • Lateef Alabi-Oki

            In reply to jrickel96:


            Anecdotes don't equate to facts.


            An informed person would compare Cosmos and Dynamo to Google Cloud Datastore and Google Cloud Bigtable, not Firestore. You don't seem informed as to the use-cases of these databases.


            Additionally, comparing RDS to Spanner is hopelessly laughable. The informed comparison would be to Google Cloud SQL. Neither of which have the global lock-free scalability and consistency of Spanner.


            The argument that somehow Kubernetes fairs better on Azure or AWS is absurd when neither is of them have the fully featured granular capabilities of GKE on GCP.


            How can Google be worse with Kubernetes when they created it? That's the dumbest shit I've heard all year. No other Cloud platform is as optimized for Kubernetes as GCP. You're beyond help if you believe anything else.


            Guess why GitLab is switching from Azure to GCP? According to their CEO, Azure's lacklustre Kubernetes support and performance.


            As far as privacy and security go, the last time I did an audit, around 6 months ago, GCP was the only cloud platform that provided end to end encryption in transit and at rest, and that was also completely HIPAA compliant.


            I did a quick check, admittedly not exhaustive, a few minutes ago, and this has not changed. This makes GCP the most private and secure cloud platform available among the top 3 vendors. So, once again, your privacy myths are not grounded in reality.


            I'm not worried about GitLab getting sold. I clearly stated I wanted Google to buy them. I just don't want corporations, with a history of decades terrorizing FLOSS, hijacking hard earned labor of open source projects for their own narrow minded gain.


            When Microsoft had relevance, power and influence they showed us how evil they could be. This is not a myth or old wives tale. This is factual history. The FLOSS community witnessed first hand this terror for over 20 years.


            The FLOSS community was referred to as a "cancer" or "virus" that needed to be eradicated. And Microsoft embarked on a 2 decade-long agenda to accomplish that goal at every conceivable level. They're still patent-trolling the Android community to this very day.


            Thank goodness, they failed!


            So, forgive me, if I'm not buying the whole Microsoft has changed narrative.


            They've changed only because if they didn't, they'd die like all the other anti-open proprietary-hogging, license-leeching, patent-trolling companies before them. What happens when they become influential, relevant, and powerful again?


            Old habits die hard and history tends to repeat itself.

            • jrickel96

              In reply to mystilleef:

              An informed person? I work in them every day. So forgive me if I stop listening to you because YOU clearly have no idea what YOU are talking about. Seeing as I have to make platform decisions based on cloud architecture and then sell that to investors and clients, I think I know something on it.


              You see, I have to oversee millions of dollars of development based on cloud infrastructure and Google is no where near as strong as other offerings. As I said, AWS, Azure, and IBM are all superior across the board. GCP is a nice "starter" cloud, but that is all Google is - a starter set. Google's products scale poorly.


              So for the programmer working in his basement or working on a small, independent project, Google works well. Try scaling it.


              Google's DB management also is terrible for both relational and non-relational. The DBs often don't follow the rules you establish when they DB gets too large or you have too many active users. When I get 1500+ logged in simultaneously, the Google DBs get wonky. And that's why Google is not the answer for anyone that wants to scale up or go international.


              There's a reason why Microsoft led everyone in Cloud revenue in the first quarter and why Google was a distant fourth place. Google does well when they subsidize their decent offerings with their ad money, but as the ad revenue declines, they won't be able to do that and NO ONE will want to pay full price for anything from Google if they can get it from Microsoft, Amazon, or IBM.

              • Lateef Alabi-Oki

                In reply to jrickel96:


                You don't work on shit.


                If you don't know how to properly compare and contrast the different types of databases among cloud platform providers, then you have no credibility.


                >>> You see, I have to oversee millions of dollars of development based on cloud

                >>> infrastructure and Google is no where near as strong as other offerings.


                Ha! Sure!


                >>> Seeing as I have to make platform decisions based on cloud architecture and then sell

                >>> that to investors and clients,


                So, I've been arguing with a sales rep all this time. Thanks for wasting my time.


                >>> When I get 1500+ logged in simultaneously, the Google DBs get wonky.


                Yes, the hundreds of millions of active user sessions on Google services, and the billions of transactions per second that Google transacts daily, only happen because Google services run on Azure.


                No way in hell GCP could handle millions of users simultaneously and billions of transactions per second on a daily basis.


                As a matter of fact, word on the street is that the only reason YouTube works is that less than 1500 Google user sessions are active simultaneously. Otherwise, "the Google DBs" will get "wonky".


                Fuck outta here!


                I'm surprised anyone let you near the GCP console.


                Have a good day!

  23. nbplopes

    Github its mainly about pushing and storing code publicly making it a good tool for open source projects to the point it became a a global reference. It evolved to private repositories, but that is not the hook.


    For MS this is just a platform to push its software. I wonder if either this will become the next Skype or the next Minecraft. I can see MS adding all sorts of clutter deviating the tool from its core value: Microsoft Teams, Skype, Visual Studio, Bots so on and so forth. I don't think they will be bullish to do it avalanche style, but they will do it disguised as Github improvements.


    Make no mistake, the end game is control the change in the digital space (who controls the change has an incredible power). To control the change one needs to control the software. For what reason they would be acquiring major companies almost yearly?


    LinkedIn, Lynda, Skype ... almost none of its acquisitions made the underlying products and services much better. For what reason they got into Digital Music, or Job search and training (Groove, Linked In?), was it do to more or better? Of course not. I bet they considered and maybe tried to take control of Facebook at some point, Google Search ... so on and so forth. For them its all about software, software, software, owning the software, all of it!


    MS modus operandi, reminds me of an animal, an octopus more so than another tech company. One might not like it, but Its absolutely incredible, beautiful even. Fascinating ...


    Cheers.

Leave a Reply