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

Cloudflare S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 366 posts

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#221

Post by squirrelicus »

JohnAtCC wrote: post #37
the_duke wrote: post #14

The free tier of Cloudflare has been really amazing for small to medium websites. It gives you a basically unlimited CDN, SSL, HTTP/2, DDos protection and fast DNS servers with almost 0 effort... for free ... Thus increasing the stability and speed of many web properties that otherwise wouldn't pay for it. I'm afraid this could easily change once the company is public and is under the pressures that come along with i…

How so? If the service is WORTH paying for, then it SHOULD be paid for. The world of service, if proven magnetizable, should always be monetized. #FreeMarkets

I'm a #freemarket guy and all, but freemium is a long standing monetization model that many companies have used to accelerate net profits in the long run. Not really anything anti free market about freemium. The problem with freemium has always been building the premium tier that someone wants to pay for :P

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#222

Post by JakeTheAndroid »

dmix wrote: post #214
JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the topic of discussion. If we are discussing the viability of a company, and trying to project long term success, then this is all good news. If you are discussing whats best for society and how these businesses impact those things, then this could be alarming news.

There's a big shift towards privacy happening now. If Cloudflare came out a decade ago I'd also be in their camp. But the risks are too high and developers are starting to recognize that Cloudflare is far from free and comes with long terms consequences for the health and resiliency of the internet. I appreciate how they pushed HTTPs widely. But now that's Let's encrypt exists there's no excuse. Ill also never forgiv…

I mean, that's like your opinion or whatever, sure. But this S-1 filing is about if they are a sustainable business. And none of what you touched on would seem to have any serious impact on their business model.

The Tor stuff feels way over blown to me. I worked at CF while it was a problem, and was an avid Tor user at the time. It was a terrible user experience, but it wasn't completely Cloudflare's fault. They didn't target Tor users, Tor exit nodes have terrible IP rep which is an industry standard for risk rating IPs. ReCaptcha had some functional issues that could not be solved by Cloudflare. And lastly, site owners did next to nothing to support their Tor visitors even once dedicated options were available via the IP Firewall. This seems like hyperbole, especially as JGC was avid about getting this resolved, and was very public with the discourse. Companies don't do things perfect all the time, and it seems extreme to hold CF purely responsible and hold onto that anger for something that's long been resolved.

In the end, everything in this S-1 is promising for people interested in tech businesses, which is what many people are praising. They already generate a profit, their operation costs are reasonable, etc.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#223

Post by calimac »

Matthew Prince is a liability or simply is the public face of the entire organization’s political activism that WILL BE A LIABILITY MOVING FORWARD.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#224

Post by moojd »

mffnbs wrote: post #191
luckylion wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not parent, but probably. If they weren't legal, there wouldn't be an issue: Cloudflare complying with the law to block illegal websites would be a non-story.

Cloudflare making the decision not to serve specific customers in a legal fashion that does not discriminate against any protected groups is a non-story as well. You don't often see private businesses making decisions like this on the front page of the new york times, but this one is a hot topic. They have no social, moral, or ethical obligation to serve these customers, and one's disagreement with that does not mean…

Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be a story and it's not ideologically inconsistent to agree that Cloudflare has the right to not serve these customers while also scrutinizing them for it. What is legal/illegal is not a substitute for a personal value system.

A company as large and important as Cloudflare disconnecting a client for moral or public outrage reasons is a big story and they should be watched with a careful eye even if you agree with the outcome.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#226

Post by 867-5309 »

rvz wrote: post #83

> Today, our network spans 193 cities in over 90 countries and interconnects with over 8,000 networks globally, including major ISPs, public cloud providers, SaaS services, and enterprises. We estimate that we operate within 100 milliseconds of 98% of the Internet-connected population in the developed world, and 93% of the Internet-connected population globally (for context, the blink of an eye is 300-400 millisecond…

300-400ms for blinking? is that during a stroke?? I see they went with the top search engine result Quora - not the best source for facts - and the second result states a tenth of a second, which is probably more accurate. we get it, your service is quite fast, as fast as blinking

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#227

Post by apexalpha »

867-5309 wrote: post #226
rvz wrote: post #83

> Today, our network spans 193 cities in over 90 countries and interconnects with over 8,000 networks globally, including major ISPs, public cloud providers, SaaS services, and enterprises. We estimate that we operate within 100 milliseconds of 98% of the Internet-connected population in the developed world, and 93% of the Internet-connected population globally (for context, the blink of an eye is 300-400 millisecond…

300-400ms for blinking? is that during a stroke?? I see they went with the top search engine result Quora - not the best source for facts - and the second result states a tenth of a second, which is probably more accurate. we get it, your service is quite fast, as fast as blinking

>On average the human blink lasts only a tenth of a second which is 100 milliseconds. Wow, that’s fast! Sometimes, it can even last up to 400 milliseconds.

This is what the second result says. Bit weird to focus on this for what seems a fantastic startup to succesfully IPO.

Congratz to the entire team, and the CEO (who sometimes visits here I think)

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#228

Post by tomatocracy »

qeternity wrote: post #164
AznHisoka wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but the greater fool theory and financial engineering (ie buybacks) will lead to greater profits for stockholders in the long run.

Buybacks are a more tax efficient vehicle for returning capital to shareholders.

They're also arguably more cost-efficient if a large portion of investors would just take their dividend and use it to reinvest in the stock - the buyback means that group don't need to incur the friction costs of doing so.

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#229

Post by CydeWeys »

zettatron wrote: post #189
_-___________-_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"disgusting"? Really?

I've noticed this is one of the internet's new favorite words. Following behind "slams", "narcissist", and "gaslighting"

And my favorite pet peeves, "claps back at", "demolishes", "owns", and "destroys".

Re: Cloudflare S-1

#230

Post by throwaway2048 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #93
whatshisface wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets don't equilibrate at the value to the customer any more than they equilibrate at the cost of production. They compromise between the two.

> Markets don't equilibrate at the value to the customer any more than they equilibrate at the cost of production. They compromise between the two. No, they don't compromise between them, nor do they reflect one more than the other: the basic law of supply and demand is that markets clear at the quantity and price where the marginal cost to produce equals the marginal value to customers which also equals the sale pri…

assuming a huge number of perfect circumstances which is not how reality works. Assumptions made for what you said to play out include: perfect competition, perfect information, perfect rationality of actors, 0 barrier to entry, that value and cost is strongly bounded and defined on either end, and much more.

Common examples that violate each one in term: Facebook, Used cars, Veblen goods, Utilities, Healthcare.

A market that has one large player that completely dominates certain segment(s) is not likely to be a healthy one that is providing value at near cost, why would it be? The incentive is always to charge as much as possible.

Post reply on HN