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

Docker Raises $23M

docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 281 posts

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#51

Post by Nextgrid »

birktj wrote: post #39
dean177 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust arc is incredibly obnoxious

Is this kind of artificial delay even legal under the GDRP? Does anyone know if there has been any lawsuits against trust arc and co over this stuff? After waiting forever I was greeted with: "Some opt-outs failed. Opt-out requests responded with error or timeout. Please try again". How is this okay?

It isn’t (GDPR regulates how consent can be obtained and shenanigans like these are an obvious example of bad faith) but the entities supposed to enforce the GDPR are absolutely incompetent and don’t care.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#52

Post by systemvoltage »

zapita wrote: post #47
systemvoltage wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is obvious. This is a common pattern: 1. Offer open-source 100% free product that's absolutely ground breaking, unlike anything else. 2. Get a shitload of users and free PR machine gets rolling. Network effects kick in. 3. Go to investors with your active user count in excess of millions. 4. Investors go bonkers and their eyes swell up with all the ways they can exploit these addicted-to-free user base. 5. Company…

Except Docker had already raised $10M before launching. So they do not match your pattern.

Doesn't matter. $10M initial round to offer free product to get users aboard.

The key point is to get users addicted to free.

Uber did this by undercutting the entire taxi industry at a loss. Ever wondered why your rides were so cheap!? Jio did the same in India, offer free unlimited internet on their phone service and wipe out the competition.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#53

Post by Yajirobe »

systemvoltage wrote: post #42
paxys wrote: post #27

Considering how entrenched Docker has been in global tech infrastructure for so many years, I automatically assumed that the company was worth billions already, but guess not. I wonder why they haven't been bought out by Microsoft or Google, if nothing else then just for the talent.

It is obvious. This is a common pattern: 1. Offer open-source 100% free product that's absolutely ground breaking, unlike anything else. 2. Get a shitload of users and free PR machine gets rolling. Network effects kick in. 3. Go to investors with your active user count in excess of millions. 4. Investors go bonkers and their eyes swell up with all the ways they can exploit these addicted-to-free user base. 5. Company…

> I have zero empathy for these companies and their investors.

Wow, imagine being so hateful towards amazing open-source tools

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#54

Post by SilasX »

I'm confused -- is this a liquidity event or something (or somehow to let employees cash out options)? The release doesn't mention anything about that, and yet $23M seems like a small amount of money for Docker to have to beg the equity market for, given how small that figure is compared to their revenues:

https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/docker-monitoring-...

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#55

Post by boynamedsue »

alexellisuk wrote: post #2

Interesting to see this called a Series B. Did Docker hit reset after the split? Here's a separate thread for "Docker Series B: More Fuel To Help Dev Teams Get Ship Done" - with a bit more info on what the plan is from Scott. Interesting to see this news on the same day that "We don't need Docker" was also on the front page of Hacker News. I think we absolutely still need Docker in 2021. https://news.ycombinator.com/…

Docker recapitalized in 2019 when they sold the enterprise business to Mirantis.

So, yes Docker hit the reset button and wiped out all the existing shareholders.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#56

Post by bdcp »

TameAntelope wrote: post #31
mark_and_sweep wrote: post #11

At first, I wanted to read the article. But having to wait more than one minute to submit my cookie preferences, I closed the tab and left. If anyone at Docker is reading this: Please reconsider your cookie banner implementation.

And here I wasn't asked at all about my preferences! I wonder why our experience was so different.

I've checked, mine was blocked by adblocker

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#57

Post by nvr219 »

neon_electro wrote: post #45
random5634 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These cookie banners are so annoying - govt messes this type of stuff over and over. Let me control cookies on my end, I can choose not to accept cookies using my own browser controls, or delete them after 1 hour etc.

"govt" didn't develop the specific cookie banner implementation Docker is using.

yeah this is Docker's legal team.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#58

Post by speedgoose »

random5634 wrote: post #33
mark_and_sweep wrote: post #11

At first, I wanted to read the article. But having to wait more than one minute to submit my cookie preferences, I closed the tab and left. If anyone at Docker is reading this: Please reconsider your cookie banner implementation.

These cookie banners are so annoying - govt messes this type of stuff over and over. Let me control cookies on my end, I can choose not to accept cookies using my own browser controls, or delete them after 1 hour etc.

It's actually not about the cookies, a website is allowed to have technical cookies without a banner, but getting your consent to track you and use and sell your data.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#59

Post by ivanche »

mark_and_sweep wrote: post #11

At first, I wanted to read the article. But having to wait more than one minute to submit my cookie preferences, I closed the tab and left. If anyone at Docker is reading this: Please reconsider your cookie banner implementation.

In situations like these I can only say a massive thank you to uMatrix + uBlock Origin author!

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#60

Post by enumjorge »

neon_electro wrote: post #45
random5634 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These cookie banners are so annoying - govt messes this type of stuff over and over. Let me control cookies on my end, I can choose not to accept cookies using my own browser controls, or delete them after 1 hour etc.

"govt" didn't develop the specific cookie banner implementation Docker is using.

Yeah the government is far from perfect, but people also treat it as a punching bag. It was companies who used the lack of regulation in tech to abuse cookies, and our government responded with regulation. And now some sites are implementing those rules in very annoying ways. Instead of getting mad at the party who is trying to protect you in this situation, how about directing that anger at the parties who caused the problem in the first place?
Post reply on HN