91–100 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's an actual business. I wasn't suggesting it wasn't. But even actual businesses can get a nice boost by filing along with a successful related IPO.
I don't think the decision could be made that quickly. IPOs are usually in work for months if not years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They basically make a Java-based application abstraction layer that sits on top of AWS, Azure, VMWare, etc. Basically a platform for managing storage and compute across multiple on-prem and cloud providers. It’s real enterprisey stuff — as in, it’s probably not even interesting to you until you’re big enough to run in a half dozen data centers and within all the cloud providers.
I don't foresee companies continuing to pay for the ability to switch cloud providers. Mostly because I doubt the pricing differences between providers will ever be significant enough to justify moving. I also suspect that providers will not keep feature-competitive with one another. It seems like every month, AWS is releasing new tools, and there's no way that other providers are maintaining this pace. My suspicion…
Large competent software companies like Facebook and Google have still not completely integrated Instagram and Waze respectively for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does PCF pricing work and what do those revenue numbers mean in terms of margins?
Their pricing was based on application instances and the list price was ludicrous (several hundred dollars) but most companies got good discounts. The thing that bothered me with the model was it disincentives modern microservice architectures. One big monolith cost less than lots of smaller components. It may have changed since I last saw the details.
I hope for Pivotal's sake that the eye-popping price is not crucial to their growth forecast. If it is, I think 2019-20 will be difficult for them. They just don't have the market share to force these prices down customer's throats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if Red Hat's S-1 said anything similar.
Their quarterly reports always have similar wording, to wit: "If open source software programmers, most of whom we do not employ, do not continue to develop and enhance open source technologies, we may be unable to develop new technologies, adequately enhance our existing technologies or meet customer requirements for innovation, quality and price. We rely to a significant degree on a number of largely informal commu…
"If open source software programmers, most of whom we do not employ, do not continue to develop and enhance open source technologies, our development expenses could be increased and our product release and upgrade schedules could be delayed."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their pricing was based on application instances and the list price was ludicrous (several hundred dollars) but most companies got good discounts. The thing that bothered me with the model was it disincentives modern microservice architectures. One big monolith cost less than lots of smaller components. It may have changed since I last saw the details.
This is still the case. Even after enterprise discounts, the pricing is outrageously high. I know of at least one well-known enterprise customer where IT has mandated a company-wide "get off Pivotal" policy because TCO is just too damn high. I hope for Pivotal's sake that the eye-popping price is not crucial to their growth forecast. If it is, I think 2019-20 will be difficult for them. They just don't have the marke…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is still the case. Even after enterprise discounts, the pricing is outrageously high. I know of at least one well-known enterprise customer where IT has mandated a company-wide "get off Pivotal" policy because TCO is just too damn high. I hope for Pivotal's sake that the eye-popping price is not crucial to their growth forecast. If it is, I think 2019-20 will be difficult for them. They just don't have the marke…
They tell us there that 319 customers paid $259 million between them in fiscal 2018 - so on average each customer pays $800k/year. They'll have outliers in both directions from that average - But my gut feel is they probably don't have many customers spending less that $80k/year. (Same as I'll bet there's not too many $8mill+/year ones).
The question is: are the $800k customers getting good value for that subscription, or are they looking at projected costs and thinking "we better switch to a competitor before this gets out of hand".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their consulting practice is similar. They won't sign on unless your people adopt their methodology 100% (pairing, etc) Guess it's nice to be able to be that choosy about clients.
I worked for a company (subsidiary of Siemens) who adopted that horrendous Scrum methodology. It was the absolute __worst__ year of my life. I had to pair with people non-stop even when __fixing bugs__. There were zounds of stupid rules which did not make sense whatsoever. Perfect example of forcing a methodology on a company where it will never work. I really like Pivotal products though. RabbitMQ is superb, and alt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is unnecessarily cynical. I did a couple consulting stints at Pivotal, working on the CF team. They have a very particular methodology that evolved from the earliest days of agile (Rob Mee was a friend of Kent Beck back when XP was being worked out). I walked in there as a very experienced engineer and a healthy amount of skepticism... and it turned out to be a fantastic learning experience. I've since taken the…
> This is unnecessarily cynical. I think it's pretty clear that these strict agile processes work well for some and poorly for others - some people do better in a highly structured environment and others do worse - it's a bit like remote work on the other end of the spectrum. The criticism and pushback comes from the negative experiences devs have had when management pushes a one-size-fits-all approach. I've been inv…