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

Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

sacra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 334 posts

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#101

Post by flandish »

isthisthingon99 wrote: post #72
fullsend wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great move by them to introduce a license requirement for 250+ seats but not waste resources enforcing it (as far as I can tell). Those who will pay, will pay. Those who won’t, will switch tools no matter how painful. They stayed relevant by keeping all their users, even those technically breaking the license, but also collected some cash.

I have a product that has zero reduction in functionality if your license or trial runs out, just constantly nags you when you do useful things with it. Eventually, the workers at the company insist on the company buying it. Sometimes takes 6 months hah.

Reminds me of old shareware games too. A good practice. Glad the model works for you!

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#103

Post by pwinnski »

AeroNotix wrote: post #37
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it's also good to pay in order to support the company, so long as they continue to provide something of value.

This is terrible financial advice.

It doesn't seem like financial advice, but life advice.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#104

Post by andrewxdiamond »

isthisthingon99 wrote: post #97
M3L0NM4N wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies can also get in trouble for not buying it, you could have an employee turn into a whistleblower for a lawsuit, to which they would get a % of.

New revenue stream!

This is how Oracle was born

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#105

Post by pwinnski »

hnarn wrote: post #41
unity1001 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Docker is also a convenient container registry. And its independent of ALL of those infrastructures so if i cancel any of them or move elsewhere, Im still good. So why should I not pay for Docker?

> independent of ALL of those infrastructures Ok, so where is Docker Hub hosted? Do they run their own data centers?

Irrelevant, because if they move at some point in the future, users won't have to change anything.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#106

Post by jacooper »

isthisthingon99 wrote: post #72
fullsend wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great move by them to introduce a license requirement for 250+ seats but not waste resources enforcing it (as far as I can tell). Those who will pay, will pay. Those who won’t, will switch tools no matter how painful. They stayed relevant by keeping all their users, even those technically breaking the license, but also collected some cash.

I have a product that has zero reduction in functionality if your license or trial runs out, just constantly nags you when you do useful things with it. Eventually, the workers at the company insist on the company buying it. Sometimes takes 6 months hah.

Winrar

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#107

Post by that_guy_iain »

paxys wrote: post #8

I remember everyone had written Docker off for dead when they announced their updated pricing plans, but they really made perfect sense, and I am happy to see the company recover. A large chunk of the tech world today relies on their products, but they were making next to nothing for it. It is definitely worth it for large companies to throw a few dollars their way considering the massive amount of value they are get…

Everytime there is a price hike everyone complains that said product is dead and open source competitor will replace it. Nearly always, the people complaining aren’t thinking about starting an open source project.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#108

Post by hangonhn »

isthisthingon99 wrote: post #72
fullsend wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great move by them to introduce a license requirement for 250+ seats but not waste resources enforcing it (as far as I can tell). Those who will pay, will pay. Those who won’t, will switch tools no matter how painful. They stayed relevant by keeping all their users, even those technically breaking the license, but also collected some cash.

I have a product that has zero reduction in functionality if your license or trial runs out, just constantly nags you when you do useful things with it. Eventually, the workers at the company insist on the company buying it. Sometimes takes 6 months hah.

This works incredibly well on me. I often use free or open source versions of tools and just ignore the nagging prompts about licenses. Then over time, if I like it enough that I eventually end up getting a license for it. I think the ability for me to see the value in something first before committing helps a lot. The free version sort of builds a reservoir of good will that eventually pushes me over to just paying for a license.

Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years

#109

Post by justincormack »

moduspol wrote: post #93
bdcravens wrote: post #79

For the many here who have moved to an alternative (colima, Rancher, podman, etc), other than cost, is there a compelling (ie technical) advantage to these options? (on macos specifically)

Kubernetes deprecated Docker support a few years back, so there will come a day that it may not be part of Docker Desktop. Rancher Desktop supports k3s with containerd out of the box, which has no announced deprecation. It's possible they plan to add containerd support to the built-in Kubernetes management of Docker Desktop once Docker is no longer supported, but I haven't heard about it. Beyond that, I'm not aware o…

(CTO of Docker here) Kubernetes moved Docker support out of the main repo, late last year. It is still supported and works, it is just an external repo now. As well as this Docker runs on containerd (which was originally a Docker project to work more closely with the Kubernetes project, now a CNCF project), and Docker Desktop now has a beta option to run the full containerd backend, including the image store, which we may well use to provide a common image store across Kubernetes and Docker engine in future, we are still exploring the many ways in which we can continue to improve the Kubernetes on Docker Desktop.
Post reply on HN