But Apple has a reputation of not saying anything outside of the big releases and for the most part didn&#x27;t have to be responsive because the periodic hype usually drowned out any criticism.<p>GitHub on the other hand largely owes its reputation to how it is perceived by open source communities. Their perceived value is based less on the quality of their product(s) and more on being the place all open source projects live (moreso than even SourceForge ever was -- even companies like Google and Microsoft have moved their open source projects to GitHub simply because that&#x27;s where developers expect open source projects to live).<p>Apple can get by largely on marketing and the perceived quality of their products. GitHub relies on open source projects, even if they don&#x27;t make any money of them directly. Hosting open source projects is just an advertising expense.<p>If the majority of noteworthy open source projects left GitHub (especially if they left to the same platform, e.g. GitLab.com or BitBucket) their reputation as &quot;the place where open source projects live&quot; would evaporate and they&#x27;d have to fight the same friction for new users as their competitors. Additionally they&#x27;d probably become less interesting for third-party integrations as they can no longer serve as a cheap showcase for those products&#x2F;services. This would again harm their appeal to paid users.