[deleted]
Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
131–140 of 334 posts
Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#132I 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…
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.
> as far as I can tell
I assumed we were non-compliant as nothing had changed like no accounts or license keys.
It turns out it's more of a cover license where you purchase seats but from a developer PoV, nothing visibly changes.
Procurement and Legal are the ones you'd want to ask about it since that's their contact point
Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the license fuckery, being stuck on a single platform, having to pay for upgrades for no reason ( well alright I understand this but it honestly sucks. You usually dont need the features and are happy with what you used) etc etc Pricing virtual assets is hard
I dunno.. maintanance, devops, companies keep having to pay for devs.. Hard to switch people.. It's kind of fuckery. It honestly sucks. // imo the thing to look out for is actual vendor / architecture lock-in. So just don't make things complicated yourself... Docker has it's uses, but right now it's being used for literally everything. I've been using jails, vms, and containers since the 90s. Docker is niceish, but s…
As long as you're building to OCI, you're fine.
Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#134The problem I see with their business model is that the technology has long been commoditized, and alternatives are often better. It's a pretty tough spot to be in. Anecdotally, I use Colima on my Mac, and it is better than Docker Desktop in pretty much every way I can think of. I'm sure I'm not alone. Generally, a company like Docker would sell support agreements (ie: how Red Hat does it), but selling support to dev…
It makes me wonder if Oracle is making any money off of Java at this point. Aside from losing court cases over IP, they have seriously soured the brand.
Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised by this as well, but maybe it was the HN bias that made that impression. My company received the memo from Docker to upgrade to paid version, and I helped many to move on to Podman. However there were teams for which getting a Docker Desktop license was easier than the Podman move. I am sure there are many more companies that can easily afford the convenience of Docker Desktop for a trivial fee.
What I don't understand is that devs that get paid 200k+ complain about getting any software license
Bad take. It's a tool needed for the business that the business is expected to pay for. The license belongs to the company not the employee.
Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#136I'm surprised Docker Desktop drives so much revenue. As far as I know, it is a Mac and Windows-specific tool.
Are FAANG and FAANG-like developers not using Linux machines locally despite deploying production software on Linux servers? Even for enterprise developers who use Mac and Windows, isn't 99% of day-to-day development on a Linux box you SSH into anyways?
I've never really quite grasped the need for Docker Desktop.
Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#137> 254% YoY from ~$11M ARR in late 2020 to ~$135M at the end of 2022 just by flipping Docker Hub and Docker Desktop to paid for businesses I have never met a single person who pays, or works for a company that pays, for Docker Desktop. Why would you? Paying for Docker Hub seems like something that people do because they have to short-term, but there’s no genuine selling point to it long-term and I suspect people will…
For companies that use macbooks docker for mac is still much better than the alternatives. It's really not that much $$ at the end of the day. If docker is affecting your bottom line the business is fundamentally flawed. It's not like the pricing is unreasonable.
Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#138Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#139I'm surprised Docker Desktop drives so much revenue. As far as I know, it is a Mac and Windows-specific tool. Are FAANG and FAANG-like developers not using Linux machines locally despite deploying production software on Linux servers? Even for enterprise developers who use Mac and Windows, isn't 99% of day-to-day development on a Linux box you SSH into anyways? I've never really quite grasped the need for Docker Desk…
Nope, at least here there is our own homemade version of containers. And the idea of running anything local is not really realistic anyways!
Re: Docker 2.0 went from $11M to $135M in 2 years
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I still don't know how that dude makes money. People use my software multiple times a day, so the nag is quite annoying. I need WinRar once in a few months, maybe.