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

Cal.com is going closed source

cal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 337 posts

Re: Cal.com is going closed source

#241

Post by ButlerianJihad »

fedeb95 wrote: post #239

security by obscurity doesn't work.

> security by obscurity doesn't work.

That is not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

Security through obscurity doesn't work in isolation. It doesn't work as the only solution. It is discouraged, because it can be a panacea.

But it also doesn't hurt in many instances. Holding back your source code can be a strategic advantage. It does mean that adversaries can't directly read it (nor can your friends or allies!)

Having a proprietary protocol or file format, this is also "security through obscurity" and it may slow down or hinder an attacker. Obscurity may be part of a "defense in depth" strategy that includes robust and valid methods as well.

But it is harmful to baldly claim that "it doesn't work".

Re: Cal.com is going closed source

#243

Post by Guillaume86 »

lrvick wrote: post #227
jeroenhd wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unused tokens" are the force driving token cost down. If everyone used all of the tokens they thought they were paying for, prices would explode. People with subscriptions that don't get out everything they can are subsidizing the system. There are ways to use LLM service providers that leave no tokens unused, by just billing per token. Unsurprisingly, this quickly becomes much more expensive than subscriptions.

And that is why the only winning move is owning a GPU.

I think sometimes about this, does it really make sense? Financially I mean. The is just my impressions and I'm glad to be corrected if someone has hard numbers and some experience going this route:

At the moment LLMs vendors are in market grab mode and take a loss on big subscription users, they are starting to try to move to profit but they must move carefully to not let a competitor steal their users so we will still have "cheap" tokens for a while.

Even if prices go up by a bit, they have the scale in their favor to optimize costs.

If commercial model providers go into "not competitive" territory with their prices compared to open models, wouldn't it always be cheaper to use an open models inference provider? They can take advantage of scale as well, and with no model moat, competition should keep prices honest.

And last ressort, renting GPU time in the cloud seem like a safer bet than buying a GPU to me?

Re: Cal.com is going closed source

#244

Post by eloisant »

notnullorvoid wrote: post #116
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An app like Cal.com can be vibe coded in a few evenings with a Chrome MCP server pointed to their website to figure out all the nooks and crannys. The moat of Cal.com is not the code, it's the users who don't want to migrate. The real answer is they are likely having a hard time converting people to paid plans

> The moat of Cal.com is not the code, it's the users who don't want to migrate. That's a very weak moat unless you have something else like the friction of network dependence similar to a social network.

Exactly, that's why most Saas companies are in a very tough position.

You have to bring value that goes beyond the source code and hosting, otherwise your clients are going to vibe code a custom solution instead of paying you.

Re: Cal.com is going closed source

#245

Post by Maken »

Peer_Rich wrote: post #5
doytch wrote: post #4

I get the mentality but it feels very much like security through obscurity. When did we decide that that was the correct model?

hey cofounder here. since it takes my 16 year old neighbors son 15 mins and $100 claude code credits to hack your open source project

Was open source any more secure before LLMs became so cheap? For those same 100$ you could have a North Korean hacking your code for a whole month.

Re: Cal.com is going closed source

#247

Post by eloisant »

kaashif wrote: post #217
devmor wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot imagine that license addendum is legally enforceable (let alone provable) in most jurisdictions on earth but it is interesting.

As long as it doesn't cost me anything, I'd like to see it play out in court and know for sure. But that is very unlikely even if everyone adopted it, which they won't.

I mean you might as well write "any competing project will be considered infringement". It doesn't cost you anything either.

Re: Cal.com is going closed source

#248

Post by jeroenhd »

lrvick wrote: post #227
jeroenhd wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unused tokens" are the force driving token cost down. If everyone used all of the tokens they thought they were paying for, prices would explode. People with subscriptions that don't get out everything they can are subsidizing the system. There are ways to use LLM service providers that leave no tokens unused, by just billing per token. Unsurprisingly, this quickly becomes much more expensive than subscriptions.

And that is why the only winning move is owning a GPU.

With current GPU prices, I find it difficult to find hardware to run competent models. gemma4's 26B MoE model seems to offer the best performance per megabyte of RAM, but it's not good enough to use the way one would use cloud models.

The big, impressive models all scale well for multi-customer setups because of the efficiency batching provides, but the base cost to run models like that as even a small business is incredibly high. If you can't saturate your LLM hardware almost 24/7, the time to earn back your investment is high unless you choose inferior models that are worse at their job.

Re: Cal.com is going closed source

#249

Post by OccamsMirror »

eloisant wrote: post #244
notnullorvoid wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moat of Cal.com is not the code, it's the users who don't want to migrate. That's a very weak moat unless you have something else like the friction of network dependence similar to a social network.

Exactly, that's why most Saas companies are in a very tough position. You have to bring value that goes beyond the source code and hosting, otherwise your clients are going to vibe code a custom solution instead of paying you.

> otherwise your clients are going to vibe code a custom solution instead of paying you.

How many things do you want to be responsible for? How many vibe coded projects do you want to maintain?

I think this line of reasoning is overblown. Just because you can doesn't mean a significant number of people will. I think the 3D printer comparison is apt.

Re: Cal.com is going closed source

#250

Post by eloisant »

OccamsMirror wrote: post #249
eloisant wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, that's why most Saas companies are in a very tough position. You have to bring value that goes beyond the source code and hosting, otherwise your clients are going to vibe code a custom solution instead of paying you.

> otherwise your clients are going to vibe code a custom solution instead of paying you. How many things do you want to be responsible for? How many vibe coded projects do you want to maintain? I think this line of reasoning is overblown. Just because you can doesn't mean a significant number of people will . I think the 3D printer comparison is apt.

Individuals and SMB might stick with Saas but those don't pay much.

Enterprise customers have the means to develop in house, those are the customers that will leave. And those are the whales of the Saas business.

Post reply on HN