Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 425 posts

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#371

Post by mygo »

fourstar wrote: post #293
KGIII wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually gambled on this one. I'd noticed the hype and read around this morning. I didn't go in that big, but we will see. I bought 700 shares at $29.12, sometime around noon. I was a bit busy so didn't pay much attention to this thread, but they closed at a bit over $32.00. I haven't yet set a mark to sell them. I do have it set to notify me I'd they go below 29.00 and will sell them all if they go below $24.00. I…

In what world is 20k on one stock not "too much risk"?

stock traders can easily go into the $XX,000 for a single stock. just don't let those shares fall to zero before selling them and you're only really risking $X,000.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#372

Post by trive_news »

throw98987 wrote: post #360
rdslw wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy "creating a billion-dollar business". Ive read a Bloomberg story on the IPO and saw there two hilarious sequences "MongoDB has 4,300 paying customers. MongoDB employs 820 people in 29 offices" - that does not compute (for me) so I started analyzing their financial report (btw funny is nobody in whole HN discussion quoted numbers from the report so far, but a lot of 'im buying their stock' talks here). In…

How can one short it efficiently?

You could buy the stock of a competitor if you can't get any stock to borrow for short sale.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#373

Post by dominotw »

timthelion wrote: post #340
munk-a wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had done so by presenting a product that was picked up due to it's merit and continued to gain traction based on that then I'd be rather impressed. Instead the story of MongoDB seems to be how extremely well targeted marketing and sales can build a so-so product into a huge IPO, there have been performance comparisons showing it isn't even the best at what it does so this IPO is riding on the network effect o…

Has MongoDB improved post funding? I got involved in Docker early and invested about a year of work into a project based on Docker. Docker was slow and had warts and my project ultimately is almost unusable due to Docker's slowness and warts. I knew about the warts near the beginning, but I assumed that when they got $40million, they would fix the warts. They didn't. Indeed, it seems that quality has not changed sinc…

> it has certainly gotten harder to install on linux.

Downvoted for this. I haven't used docker much but I just did

> yum install docker-ce

and started the service. took me less than 2 mins.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#374

Post by notyourday »

throw98987 wrote: post #360
rdslw wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy "creating a billion-dollar business". Ive read a Bloomberg story on the IPO and saw there two hilarious sequences "MongoDB has 4,300 paying customers. MongoDB employs 820 people in 29 offices" - that does not compute (for me) so I started analyzing their financial report (btw funny is nobody in whole HN discussion quoted numbers from the report so far, but a lot of 'im buying their stock' talks here). In…

How can one short it efficiently?

It will be optionable soon. Buy out of money puts.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#375

Post by mygo »

gaius wrote: post #323
growse wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any data can be modelled in a relational way, I guess. It doesn't mean it's the best representation. Try modelling a cyclic graph in a relational way and you'll quickly tie yourself in knots trying to update and query it. The point is, relational databases a great for storing data that you've decided to model relationally. If you decide not to, then you probably want some other sort of database.

The point is, relational databases a great for storing data that you've decided to model relationally. If you decide not to, then you probably want some other sort of database. Sure. But that database is not MongoDB.

such a naive outlook. MongoDB has two things that are being incredibly overlooked right now: 1- company stability. So you don't have to redo your database in 3 years. 2- developer community / pervasiveness. So you have an easier time integrating it into your projects, even with its technical shortcomings.

I bet two years ago there was someone out there saying "if you're going to do NoSQL you better use RethinkDB over MongoDB"

How great the technology is, is absolutely not the only factor. Good thing people can take in many different factors when making their decisions.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#376

Post by 013a »

nailer wrote: post #366
throw98987 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can one short it efficiently?

Outside the US, you can do OTC derivatives via Spread Betting. Eg, give me/take from me a pound for every point this stock moves for/against my bet. Most spread betting providers in the UK carry NASDAQ stocks. Note the downside is unlimited when you short via spread betting. Eg, there's no maximum value of a stock, so you might get proper f'd.

The downside is not unlimited when purchasing put options.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#377

Post by hodgesrm »

Arnt wrote: post #338
munk-a wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had done so by presenting a product that was picked up due to it's merit and continued to gain traction based on that then I'd be rather impressed. Instead the story of MongoDB seems to be how extremely well targeted marketing and sales can build a so-so product into a huge IPO, there have been performance comparisons showing it isn't even the best at what it does so this IPO is riding on the network effect o…

It was picked up due to merit, IMNSHO, just not the for the factors you think highly of. It didn't do ACID, not even nearly, but it did other praiseworthy things, with "laser focus on four critical things: onboarding, usability, libraries and support" ( https://www.nemil.com/mongo/2.html ). Please don't be disparaging about any of those four.

Amen to that. The first time I used MongoDB it was stupid easy to get started. We implemented data replication from MySQL into MongoDB in a 3 hour hackathon, something that would have taken at least a week for a relational database. For a full description of the experience see:

http://scale-out-blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/introducing-mysql...

Don't put down 'easy'. It's incredibly hard to do well.

P.s., I'm DBMS guy and have lived and breathed Jim Grey-style transactional consistency for decades. I'm still impressed by what they did.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#378

Post by rburhum »

awinder wrote: post #355
rburhum wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people forget that with startups, what you are trying to create is a business... the technology behind is only one element to it. It is extremely difficult to do good marketing and sales and they did it. Solve a customer problem while building a healthy business... a success story in my book.

I agree but given that the technology is the product here, they’re in a bit of a different situation. Evaluating the technology is evaluating the product here.

During my first startup as the CTO I made the mistake of thinking this way. I was so wrong I burned through 2M like it was nothing.

The "product" of a startup is a sustainable business model that can scale fast. The core technology may or may not be a key element part of that model.

So they solved a customer problem with interesting technology - regardless of arguments if it ACID compliant, or as good as .

Where they sustainable at the beginning? No. Are they sustainable now and did they scale appropriately? Yes.

As a startup that went through it stages, they did it. This is not easy because it requires all the elements to work properly (market need, sales, marketing, engineering, operations, etc).

So what if RethinkDB/or_other has a feature that is better? Irrelevant.

Even better they did this ethically, which is more than I can say about other "startups" with insane funding and dubious and questionable strategies.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#379

Post by rosser »

KGIII wrote: post #284
rosser wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're using Cassandra at scale (~1M concurrent users at peak). It is, in our experience, an absolutely terrible piece of software. The development community doesn't seem to care about fixing bugs, and when they do fix things, they reliably introduce new, often devastating defects. "Move fast and break things" is unforgivable at the persistence layer. We're stuck using an ancient, unsupported version, because it is, p…

I am not a DBA, obviously. I did have to work as one, but that was a lot of years ago. So, pardon me if this is a dumb question. You say you're stuck with it. Can't you just change a few things, shut down for a little while, export your data, and insert it into a new DB? I know it is hard to do it with writes happening at the same time, but it seems like you could freeze it as read only, extract the data, and put it…

No, it is not that simple. "We just couldn't add more data while doing so" is, by itself, a deal-breaker.

Re: MongoDB shares jump more than 30% in $192M IPO

#380

Post by rosser »

gerbilly wrote: post #249
rosser wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're using Cassandra at scale (~1M concurrent users at peak). It is, in our experience, an absolutely terrible piece of software. The development community doesn't seem to care about fixing bugs, and when they do fix things, they reliably introduce new, often devastating defects. "Move fast and break things" is unforgivable at the persistence layer. We're stuck using an ancient, unsupported version, because it is, p…

>We're stuck using an ancient, unsupported version, because it is, per our empirical testing, the least bad. But we made that choice, and for now we're stuck with it. Which is this least bad version, if you don't mind my asking?

2.2 causes us the least pain.
Post reply on HN