221–230 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: why are you on a site whose community is literally created and run by a startup accelerator? It's a given you realize how antagonistic you're being here, so I guess my only other question is why seek attention like this?
[flagged]
My impression is that when fly.io has been discussed in the recent past on HN, the conversation tends to be less about databases and more about Heroku alternatives. (?) Out of curiosity, how _does_ fly.io see itself in relation to Heroku?
My impression is that when fly.io has been discussed in the recent past on HN, its founders/employees/whatever swarm the comments to try and control the conversation, heh.
EDIT: Oh, and they often add valuable info to what they posted, too.
> If you want a fully managed database solution for your Fly Apps, there are many great options, including:
Fly looks great, but you definitely need to get on this. a company that just raised 100m shouldn't be recommending it's direct competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to it, without external funding _any_ innovation would be stifled by existing players. If you can't even get low millions in funding, existing corporations with tens of billions of free money will eat you alive. Organically growing a business; bootstrapping sounds fine, until you try to do something that potentially has any global impact.
It's funny to hear this in this context. Fly is treated as one of the few potential successors to Heroku, and Heroku raised very little money while remaining the number one choice for most devs here (based on sentiments). And then an existing corporation with tens of billions of free money came along, bought Heroku ... and ran it into the ground. So I don't buy that you need to fundraise or else be outpaced, at least…
Also, Heroku was acquired in 2010. I know that the prevailing sentiment around here is that the acquisition was a mistake, but Heroku has been owned by Salesforce for 13 of it's 16 years of life...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why are you on a site whose community is literally created and run by a startup accelerator? Why do missionaries go where no one believes their religion already? The idea that you must already be a believer in some community to participate in the community makes little sense and certainly isn't a good way to make progress. > I guess my only other question is why seek attention like this? Would you also characterize…
All commenting is attention seeking, my question was: why do it antagonistically like this? And further, why go on a (holy) mission to convince people funding companies is bad? That's a weird windmill to tilt at...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is an entirely possible and alternative funding model that perpetually allocates a responsible amount of incremental funds for the purposes of novel R&D. This works for some but not all business ventures. There's a reason corporations were invented in the Age of Sail. If you build 5% of a ship, you can't sail to the New World and bring back 5% of the resources. You just sink in the harbor. (The moral implicat…
Or maybe 20 customers who believe that having a shared ship might form a join stock company to take care of their respective 5%... and when the venture proves itself, they might convert it to a publicly traded company and let it scale up with demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You raise money to pay for costs of running the business. If you couldn't raise money, then only people who are already extremely rich would be able to start a business of any size, let alone one that requires deploying physical hardware in multiple regions. Good luck getting even four regions for less than $1M. The world would be far worse off if all tech businesses had to be bootstrapped. That being said, there's c…
> If you couldn't raise money, then only people who are already extremely rich would be able to start a business of any size, let alone one that requires deploying physical hardware in multiple regions You’re describing the current state of the world We’re there already. The entire system is built to exploit everybody who does not have significant capital to fight back against it
Just because someone takes funding, doesn't make them any less or a part of some "built" system. Even my favourite bakery could never have got started without funding - with debt not equity. It doesn't make him any less brilliant. He would've had to be extremely rich so start the business otherwise
Generally speaking (I'm not a fly.io customer) at this point that phrase WORRIES me as a customer of any service.
It makes me think that the company exists just on a constant flow of VC or similar money and what I'm using or paying for isn't a realistic or future cost and I'm involved with a system or platform that is getting stretched larger and larger regardless of income and the more money they raise the harder the fall will be.
It's unfortunate but for me it's not a phrase I want to see. I want to hear how they are profitable based on their operations and paying customers or other non VC or IPO type income. That gives me confidence in their stability.
To be clear that's not a disagreement with the title or blog, seems like a fine article that is fairly up front, but it's hard for me to really see "we raised a bunch of money" as a positive from a customer perspective anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you couldn't raise money, then only people who are already extremely rich would be able to start a business of any size, let alone one that requires deploying physical hardware in multiple regions You’re describing the current state of the world We’re there already. The entire system is built to exploit everybody who does not have significant capital to fight back against it
I am so curious why you repeatedly spit in the collective face of the millions of small business owners in the US and around the world. If what you say were true, the world would exist as a series of 3-5 megacorps, and small businesses would not exist. Since they do exist, how do you square that with your claim that only the "extremely rich would be able to start a business of any size" is currently true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why are you on a site whose community is literally created and run by a startup accelerator? Why do missionaries go where no one believes their religion already? The idea that you must already be a believer in some community to participate in the community makes little sense and certainly isn't a good way to make progress. > I guess my only other question is why seek attention like this? Would you also characterize…
All commenting is attention seeking, my question was: why do it antagonistically like this? And further, why go on a (holy) mission to convince people funding companies is bad? That's a weird windmill to tilt at...
Svelte, SolidJS, Remix, and NextJS are all tied to San Francisco venture capitalism and that's got me worried about their future.