Earlier quoted context omitted.
How’s Snowflake doing? One thing these database companies have going for themselves, is that once a customer company’s data and code is locked in to a particular database, then it becomes very very hard to get out. Not impossible, but just very difficult.
I've heard this line many times but is this actually true? Are there stories or statistics of these things?
RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
171–180 of 237 posts
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that a everything-new-is-old description for cloud offerings?
I once saw a fascinating quote that went something like the following: "As computing technology develops it becomes more efficient to take centralised computing resources and distribute them closer to the user. As network technology develops it becomes more efficient to centralise them again. Further advances redistribute and yet further advances recentralise. This pattern has been noticed several times in the histor…
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#173RethinkDB was done really, really well. It is one of the very few distributed databases that went through Jepsen relatively unscathed and delivered on promises made. Development was done in the public, questions were asked through StackOverflow. You interacted with competent, skillful and experienced developers.
And yet MongoDB was the latest fashion fad, end even though it did NOT deliver on the promises, it was the hot-database-du-jour that kids used.
The article is mostly about the business model, and I also always thought they would have a hard time making money on the database. But I think they would have had a much better shot if it became more popular. It didn't, which accelerated the company's demise.
EDIT: I just realized that I wrote about RethinkDB in the past tense, even though it very much exists as I write it. In fact I run my business on it. But because it fell out of favor, when it was open-sourced, it failed to pick up momentum, and it now seems unlikely that it will.
Which is why I'm working on switching to FoundationDB, and I'm slightly worried that it will suffer the same fate: it is excellent technically (the best transactional guarantees in a distributed database you can get), but difficult to understand and not very user-friendly. It's not the "node.js database for everyone". The only reason I'm considering it is because Apple uses and develops it, which gives me hope for longer-term maintenance.
Going back to fashions — you can have a product which excels technically, but if it's out of fashion, it might as well not exist.
I think we would all be better off if we stopped trying to always pick The One True Database, The One True Programming Language, etc — and instead accepted that there might be multiple tools, each specialized for certain kinds of tasks.
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#174I was under the impression that rethink db was not open source (until after it “failed”). That’s not a reason for failure, of course, but I have mentioned before that we (as in developers) often only choose things with permissive licenses, often to the detriment of the products we “support” (see the recent elastic drama, where we blamed elastic being forked by Amazon for being too permissive!).
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that this market is also one that is familiar to every other engineer. It's is a terrible one to get into because developers hate paying for their tools.
Did RethinkDB ever actually attempt to get people to pay for it? The massive, gaping hole at the heart of this analysis is "maybe we failed because we gave our product away for free as open source"?
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#176is the entire developer tool market bad, or just the db sector is bad? developer tool market seems to be the only one I'm familiar with as an engineer. If I were to start a business, I will probably also do something for this market.
The problem is that this market is also one that is familiar to every other engineer. It's is a terrible one to get into because developers hate paying for their tools.
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#177> Developers love building developer tools, often for free. So while there is massive demand, the supply vastly outstrips it. This is key, and plays out over and over again in different forms. There are no points for difficulty, only supply and demand. PG puts this well [1]: > That's the essence of a startup: having brilliant people do work that's beneath them. Big companies try to hire the right person for the job.…
So what happens then when a polished open source solution solves for a problem that developer tools cannot solve for? That speaks nothing of demand and only signals that there is no alternative supply. It also speaks nothing to the boringness of the hypothetical solution. I suspect by asking that question any reader starts immediately scratching their head thinking up what problem/solution that could possibly be. Don…
So yeah, that is speaking of demand. Economically-relevant demand.
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, I think this is why private clubs used to be a thing and may be the only way to get a sustainable cozy, atmospheric coffee shop. Because really that's what you're selling, not coffee, but atmosphere. And membership is a way to charge for your real product.
Or charge for time, like Ziferblat do: https://ziferblat.co.uk/
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s the only real player in their market. RethinkDB with MongoDB ‘performance’ would have blown them out of the water.
But it’s the only real player in their market Not at all. All of MongoDB is just a feature in Postgres, and Postgres does it better, and Postgres does hundreds more things too.
I don’t disagree with you, but the people that choose Mongo do not see postgres as a valid alternative.
Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)
#180Database startups suffer from an extreme case of an important truism in startups generally: the product you think you are selling is not the product the customer thinks they are buying. No one buys a database per se , they are just a means to some other end. People that love database technology — that would be me — tend to start database companies. It is very difficult to sell a database. It is much, much easier to s…