Live data from Hacker News

RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

defmacro.org

111–120 of 237 posts

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#111

With four years of hindsight, the estimate of DBaaS and managed database hosting companies of being https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2021/03/10/mo... ), which means that assuming RethinkDB's estimates were correct, the market they wrote off as too small was actually about to explode into something much larger. That's not to say that they would have succeeded if they'd gone after that though; instead we…

MongoDB's stock price is quite remarkable, given how dismissive a lot of people (including myself) on HacherNews have been of their offering. It goes to show that HackerNews consensus != reality. I do wonder where/how Mongo makes their money - if anybody has some insight, please share.

I have used Mongo for 9 years. First at a game company, then for several prototypes that made it to production in my current role. We have not lost data once. Many of my friends at medium-sized companies use Mongo for much larger projects and have not lost data a single time, either.

And it is it not just me and my friends -- HSBC recently announced they are moving 65 of its relational databases to mongodb. I am not sure that is wise, but I think it furthers my view that data-loss is not a concern in many contexts.

The data-loss thing was most certainly real, but has not been since wiredtiger if one manages it the right way or uses it as a service.

I would not say that I would say that HN != reality, maybe !== reality :). Neither side of the debate is wholly right, and neither is wholly wrong.

The reason I use it is that for many projects, all you need is a relatively fast JSON document store, and mongo is so developer-friendly such that speed-to-prototype is so much shorter than anything else I have used in 25 years of building database-backed applications. Rethink was the only product that I would have used in its place and I was extremely sad to see it go. I agree with the commenter elsewhere in the belief that it would have thrived had it survived. I was using it for my personal/learning projects and was ready to switch everywhere.

We have stuck with Mongo in production for a few products, one relatively large, and I think if you have separated your concerns well-enough, it is okay developing in Mongo while leaving yourself a path to postgresql or something else. You need to prove, first, that the thing you are building is useful, and Mongo will let you get to that really fast.

I believe what is happening here is that the happy folks are quiet, and the aggrieved folks' experiences are real but it likely was a bad fit for their particular situation. For the subset of situations where we use it, it has allowed my teams quickly in our experimental work.

All of that said, I work in an innovation space where we throw a lot of things at the wall to see what sticks, and our time-to-prototype is often a few months at most. For us, it has been a godsend, but our situation is rather unique.

-h

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#113

is 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.

Apparently, you can make a five digit income from selling an IDE colorscheme.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26262989

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#114

is 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.

If you want to make any money in developer tools, the enterprise corporations are the best customers.

Don't expect to make big bucks selling to single devs.

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#115

is 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.

Pretty much the entire sector is bad. In general, it's much better to be in a market where you customers cannot do you your job, not just one where they don't want to do your job. In the latter markets, they start asking "Why should I pay you to do something I can do myself?", or just start doing it themselves, and that holds down the price you can charge. This applies to a lot of familiar service businesses as well:…

Valuable insightful comment - thanks!!

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MongoDB's stock price is quite remarkable, given how dismissive a lot of people (including myself) on HacherNews have been of their offering. It goes to show that HackerNews consensus != reality. I do wonder where/how Mongo makes their money - if anybody has some insight, please share.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mongodb-inc-announc... - Revenue: Total revenue was $150.8 million in the third quarter fiscal 2021, an increase of 38% year-over-year. Subscription revenue was $144.1 million, an increase of 39% year-over-year, and services revenue was $6.7 million, an increase of 19% year-over-year. - Gross Profit: Gross profit was $104.7 million in the third quarter fiscal 2021, representin…

MongoDB Atlas's business model seems very, very odd to me. The prices for hosted Mongo are so high that I really find myself asking who is paying for this and what the target market is. In particular I wonder how they can possibly be losing money when charging such insane markups unless they have virtually no customers.

For a dedicated database that has 32 GB of RAM, 8 virtualised CPUs, and only 160GB of storage you will pay $2 an hour! That's $17,520 a year for a database with the same level of compute and far less storage than my laptop.

I realise a big part of their target market is firms who are convinced they either can't hire skilled sysadmins or are convinced their time is worth more than the US President but at $17,520/yr for a tiny database it only takes two or three of those before you could, in fact, hire a full time sysadmin in a cheap location. And there's no way that maintaining these things would require an FTE, it's not even close to being a full time job. So how do the economics of this work out? Can anyone explain to me?

My best guess is that Atlas customers are companies that are totally price insensitive and have some sort of "everything must be cloud managed without exception" rule imposed from the top down. As Mongo is licensed such that only they can run a hosted service, such customers would find themselves forced by internal policy into paying whatever price Atlas charges. This would also explain their very low services revenue. But I don't know that, it's just a guess.

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#117

Database 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…

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.

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#118

is 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.

Pretty much the entire sector is bad. In general, it's much better to be in a market where you customers cannot do you your job, not just one where they don't want to do your job. In the latter markets, they start asking "Why should I pay you to do something I can do myself?", or just start doing it themselves, and that holds down the price you can charge. This applies to a lot of familiar service businesses as well:…

But most companies could do things their suppliers do, because companies always have the option of hiring people with those skills and developing those competencies in house. E.g. Google moved from running their software in commercial datacenters to building their own, or how Amazon has progressively taken over more and more of the supply chain. Android is sold to firms that can build their own mobile operating systems and have done so in the past, yet it's still profitable for Google to do it for them.

Fundamentally, business is about specialisation. Your customers always have the option of becoming jacks-of-all-trades but generally recognise it's best not to. Obviously if the value you're selling is so thin that your customers regularly and genuinely feel they could roll their own without incurring much cost, that's no good, but that's going to typically be the case in the early days before you had a chance to build up much value.

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#119

Database 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…

I don’t know if this is a corollary, but when I try to come up with an example of someone getting rich selling databases, I think of companies known more for their sales than their engineering.

Re: RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

#120
post #15

is 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.

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"?
Post reply on HN