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

CloudFlare: A website security product accidentally makes sites 60% faster

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 49 posts

Re: CloudFlare: A website security product accidentally makes sites 60% faster

#3

Post by moe »

Perhaps someone can demystify CloudFlare for me?

Their value proposition is completely absurd ("protect websites from hacking"), yet they're still around and get quite a bit of seemingly expensive PR-spin like this article.

Who pays for the "accidental CDN" that, according to the article, pushes as much traffic as the 10th largest website on the internet? Their optional $20/mo subscription plan can't possibly cover that.

Re: CloudFlare: A website security product accidentally makes sites 60% faster

#5

Post by bradmccarty »

moe wrote: post #3

Perhaps someone can demystify CloudFlare for me? Their value proposition is completely absurd ("protect websites from hacking"), yet they're still around and get quite a bit of seemingly expensive PR-spin like this article. Who pays for the "accidental CDN" that, according to the article, pushes as much traffic as the 10th largest website on the internet? Their optional $20/mo subscription plan can't possibly cover t…

I think that you have to look at how CloudFlare is billing itself. It's a simple solution for people who want to have a faster website. It's easier to implement than most other caching or CDN and that $20 plan is likely limited to sites under X amount of traffic.

The company is only sitting on around $2 mm in funding (if memory serves me) so it's either making a decent sum of money from people who find value in that accidental CDN or it's going to fizzle out quickly due to lack of funds.

The thing that you have to keep in mind is that (likely) the vast majority of its customers aren't on the same level of technological prowess that you have. CloudFlare is aimed at people who run sites and just want them to be easier to run while working better and being safer. There's a lot of money to be had from a service that can fulfill that request.

Oh, and as for the expensive PR-spin, this is the first time I've heard from CloudFlare in 8 months, even after specifically asking them to get in touch with me. If I'm not mistaken, the company has done very little PR. They've gotten attention in a way that many people seem to have forgotten -- by having a good product.

Re: CloudFlare: A website security product accidentally makes sites 60% faster

#6

Post by eastdakota »

bradmccarty wrote: post #5
moe wrote: post #3

Perhaps someone can demystify CloudFlare for me? Their value proposition is completely absurd ("protect websites from hacking"), yet they're still around and get quite a bit of seemingly expensive PR-spin like this article. Who pays for the "accidental CDN" that, according to the article, pushes as much traffic as the 10th largest website on the internet? Their optional $20/mo subscription plan can't possibly cover t…

I think that you have to look at how CloudFlare is billing itself. It's a simple solution for people who want to have a faster website. It's easier to implement than most other caching or CDN and that $20 plan is likely limited to sites under X amount of traffic. The company is only sitting on around $2 mm in funding (if memory serves me) so it's either making a decent sum of money from people who find value in that…

We're not going to fizzle out any time soon. :-)

Re: CloudFlare: A website security product accidentally makes sites 60% faster

#8

Post by bbatsell »

moe wrote: post #3

Perhaps someone can demystify CloudFlare for me? Their value proposition is completely absurd ("protect websites from hacking"), yet they're still around and get quite a bit of seemingly expensive PR-spin like this article. Who pays for the "accidental CDN" that, according to the article, pushes as much traffic as the 10th largest website on the internet? Their optional $20/mo subscription plan can't possibly cover t…

> Who pays for the "accidental CDN" that, according to the article, pushes as much traffic as the 10th largest website on the internet? Their optional $20/mo subscription plan can't possibly cover that.

They use VigLink to add affiliate tags to the external links of the sites that use them.

Re: CloudFlare: A website security product accidentally makes sites 60% faster

#9

Post by eli »

bbatsell wrote: post #8
moe wrote: post #3

Perhaps someone can demystify CloudFlare for me? Their value proposition is completely absurd ("protect websites from hacking"), yet they're still around and get quite a bit of seemingly expensive PR-spin like this article. Who pays for the "accidental CDN" that, according to the article, pushes as much traffic as the 10th largest website on the internet? Their optional $20/mo subscription plan can't possibly cover t…

> Who pays for the "accidental CDN" that, according to the article, pushes as much traffic as the 10th largest website on the internet? Their optional $20/mo subscription plan can't possibly cover that. They use VigLink to add affiliate tags to the external links of the sites that use them.

Somewhat offtopic, but why do affiliate programs go along with this? If it's a link that was already going to Amazon, then adding the tag brought in no new business and CloudFront does not deserve a cut.

Re: CloudFlare: A website security product accidentally makes sites 60% faster

#10

Post by eastdakota »

eli wrote: post #7

I remember signing up for the beta of this service not really understanding how it worked and was pretty weirded out when it asked me to point my DNS to their server. That's not an anti-spam product, that's hosting.

CloudFlare is reverse proxy. You keep your existing hosting provider. It's just like how Postini, MX Logic, or MessageLabs stopped email spam via a change to DNS.
Post reply on HN