Strategic Rationale for Microsoft Acquiring GitHub: Developers, Cloud and Enterprise

Microsoft bought GitHub in 2018. Explain why: what strategic problem was Microsoft solving, and what did owning GitHub give it that it could not get another way? ```hint Then versus later Reason from Microsoft's business and its standing with developers when the deal was announced, and keep that separate from benefits that only became visible in later years. ``` ### Clarifying Questions - Should I explain only Microsoft's motives when the deal was announced, or also judge the acquisition with what we know now, including products built on GitHub since? - Do you want the business case (cloud consumption, enterprise sales) to lead, the developer-ecosystem case, or a ranking of both? - Should I include the risks Microsoft took on, such as open-source projects moving to rival code hosts? ### What a Strong Answer Covers - Microsoft's starting position: its cloud strategy, its history with open-source developers and what it lacked - Distinct strategic motives, ranked by importance and tied to that position rather than listed - Why buying beat building its own service or partnering with GitHub - The developer-trust risk and how Microsoft could keep GitHub credible with users of rival clouds and tools - Metrics or evidence that would show whether the deal worked ### Follow-up Questions - With hindsight, was the deal worth the price, and which single metric would you use to judge it? - As the PM responsible for GitHub right after the deal closed, which Azure integration would you build first, and what would you deliberately keep cloud-neutral? - What would Microsoft's developer strategy have looked like if Google or Amazon had bought GitHub instead?