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

251–260 of 334 posts

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

#251

Post by kdrag0n »

turtleyacht wrote: post #249
kdrag0n wrote: post #151

Looks like there's a lot of discussion about Docker Desktop alternatives here, so shameless plug: I've been working on a new Linux+Docker+Kubernetes solution for macOS recently! Already has quite a few improvements over existing apps including Docker Desktop, Rancher, Colima, etc: - Fast networking: 30 Gbps! vs. 150 Mbps with Docker VPNKit. Full VPN compatibility, IPv6, ping, ICMP and UDP traceroute, and half-open TC…

May I ask, what language(s)/stack is it written in? It sounds like it has a ton of great features. I guess virtualization is its own domain, much like video encoders, cryptography, and systems programming. Feels like the gateway to those is C and assembly.

It's a mix of Go, Rust, Swift, and C, but I didn't write any virtualization code—it's all built around Apple's Virtualization.framework because that's the only way to use Rosetta in VMs. (The architecture bits are behind a private API in Hypervisor.framework.)

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

#252

Post by bart_spoon »

thefounder wrote: post #38
warinukraine wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's Docker Desktop exactly?

The thing that I have to install on MacOS so that I can run docker. Is there any other way(i.e no gui utility) ?

I have found Colima to be a pretty hassle free alternative: https://github.com/abiosoft/colima

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

#253

Post by JimDabell »

ahepp wrote: post #179
roughly wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll do the math: $250k/yr/developer, so for 1 quarter, that's $62.5k, 3 developers for one quarter is $187.5k. Docker costs $10/mo, or $120/yr, so for 1000 developers, that's $120k/yr, or a payoff time of 1.5 years, assuming nobody ever has to touch anything ever again. Let's say our solution requires 1 developer-quarter per year to maintain - bugfixes, upgrades, deployments, etc. That's $62.5k/yr. That pushes o…

Is 1,000 employees a big tech company?

A thousand developers, not a thousand employees.

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

#254

Post by turtleyacht »

kdrag0n wrote: post #251
turtleyacht wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask, what language(s)/stack is it written in? It sounds like it has a ton of great features. I guess virtualization is its own domain, much like video encoders, cryptography, and systems programming. Feels like the gateway to those is C and assembly.

It's a mix of Go, Rust, Swift, and C, but I didn't write any virtualization code—it's all built around Apple's Virtualization.framework because that's the only way to use Rosetta in VMs. (The architecture bits are behind a private API in Hypervisor.framework.)

That's awesome, combining the strengths of (or hacking around) multiple languages.

Recent reads include Mac OS on Docker, rooted John Deere tractors, jart's Blink work, and now this :)

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

#255

Post by chii »

HatchedLake721 wrote: post #184
roughly wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gets me about this is the math doesn't make any sense. Docker charges $10/developer/month. Those developers are paid $150k+/yr, fully loaded to the company (insurance, taxes, accounting, etc) is probably double that, but call it $250k/yr to be nice. You take 3 developers and have them spend a quarter on replacing Docker Desktop, that's nearly $200k in developer costs spent replacing a tool that's gonna cost your…

Amen. This is why I don’t want to sell to developers. “Here’s a solution that will save you hours every month, it’s only $9 p/m.” “$9 p/m???” - asked a developer choking on their avocado toast “That’s the same price as Spotify! Meh, I can develop the same thing myself in 2 weeks.” 2 months later. "Well, it's almost done. At least I won't be wasting $9 p/m."

> This is why I don’t want to sell to developers.

this is why you sell it to management or business owners. If they see value, they will pay for it.

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

#256

Post by justsomehnguy »

pas wrote: post #224
justsomehnguy wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem here is simple; it only provides this immense value if it is effectively free without discrimination. But of course, it can't really just be free, or at least Dockerhub certainly can't be. This is a self inflicted wound. They placed themselves there but never though about the costs of running a free service with PBs of traffic. > On the other hand, it also provides immense value to enterprise and even s…

would enterprizes have paid for dockerhub from day1? it's very unlikely. also they are in a tough spot, because if they limit the download of the most popular images, they limit their own basic usability, and those images happen to be almost all free super-fungible stuff (alpine, ubuntu, node, redis, postgresql, nginx, apache, and all the hundreds and thousands of common stuff FOSS stuff) tying downloads to clients r…

> would enterprizes have paid for dockerhub from day1? it's very unlikely.

For their private 'hubs'? Pretty likely. The usual SaaS stuff. "You can run it at home, with bells and whistles, but you can just pay us...". Add in some corporate mumbo jumbo about auditing, logging, archiving et cetera, et cetera.

> also they are in a tough spot, because if they limit the download of the most popular images

They did it eventually, though from the other end.

> and those images happen to be almost all free super-fungible stuff

Yep, this is what eventually became their success story - providing a service everyone uses without even thinking about it.

> tying downloads to clients requires some development, requires setting up rate-limiting, etc.

Aaand this is exactly what they did.

> because setting up a caching proxy is kind of trivial.

It's the question of convenience. Anyone can spin-up a private registry (pulling from https://hub.docker.com/_/registry/, heh) but it's PITA to configure, maintain, care. Setting up a caching proxy.. Probably can be done, but again, this requires the resources, both hardware and very software.

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

#257

Post by supportlocal4h »

kiratp wrote: post #233
rhaway84773 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For my company which went from its internal hand rolled ticketing system to Jira, Azure, etc. the big issue is that our hand rolled system, even though it had limited features, was significantly more suited to our needs. It was much faster, had the exact fields we needed, and the exact workflow we wanted. It provided email alerts using the rules thst made sense for us and did I mention it was ridiculously faster? We…

Sometimes it’s better to just change your workflow to match the tool if that avoids you having to build and maintain your own ticketing system

Sure. You take the two ladies who built and maintain your homegrown system and you run them through 6 months of training on Actions and Pipelines and Agents along with two other employees, then give them a Director and an official dept like "DevOps". Now you're ready for a new workflow. See all the hassle and money you've saved?

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

#258

Post by bruce511 »

roughly wrote: post #142
_skel wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the initial negative take on the license change was correct, and this is the dying gasp of the company. It's just taking longer than expected to replace Docker Desktop. But I am seeing a lot of progress on Podman and Rancher and a few others, and some of the larger tech companies are also building in-house replacements. A lot of the people who had to scramble to find a replacement are not happy about it. In…

What gets me about this is the math doesn't make any sense. Docker charges $10/developer/month. Those developers are paid $150k+/yr, fully loaded to the company (insurance, taxes, accounting, etc) is probably double that, but call it $250k/yr to be nice. You take 3 developers and have them spend a quarter on replacing Docker Desktop, that's nearly $200k in developer costs spent replacing a tool that's gonna cost your…

The math doesn't make sense, and that's why Docker is both successful now, and why the parent comment to yours is flawed.

Always bear in mind that when "the Internet" complains about some minor price issue, it's usually individuals who are responding.

Individuals tend to have limited cash, and all decisions are cash. They are time rich and cash poor. They run Linux on the desktop over Windows to "save money". [1]

Most companies though are cash rich and time poor. If they can outsource a task for small money then they will. Yes, there's a place where the outsource cost is too high, but that's really high. They run windows on the desktop because that saves time. They'll continue to use docker because switching costs a lot of time.

So Docker will do just fine. Companies are more than happy to spend money. See AWS as exhibit A.

[1] there are many reasons to use a Linux desktop, saving money is the least interesting.

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

#259

Post by SternenLuchs »

roughly wrote: post #142
_skel wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the initial negative take on the license change was correct, and this is the dying gasp of the company. It's just taking longer than expected to replace Docker Desktop. But I am seeing a lot of progress on Podman and Rancher and a few others, and some of the larger tech companies are also building in-house replacements. A lot of the people who had to scramble to find a replacement are not happy about it. In…

What gets me about this is the math doesn't make any sense. Docker charges $10/developer/month. Those developers are paid $150k+/yr, fully loaded to the company (insurance, taxes, accounting, etc) is probably double that, but call it $250k/yr to be nice. You take 3 developers and have them spend a quarter on replacing Docker Desktop, that's nearly $200k in developer costs spent replacing a tool that's gonna cost your…

just to fix a few assumptions as we are Migrating right now.

we have roughly 160 developers, sso is a requirement so Business license it is.

160 x24 x12 = 46k + dealing with Budgets + sso Integration

vs telling everyone to install colima, podman, whatever and replacing the commands.

if you need 3 people to replace docker, I have no clue what you are doing.

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

#260

Post by pico303 »

_skel wrote: post #130
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…

I suspect the initial negative take on the license change was correct, and this is the dying gasp of the company. It's just taking longer than expected to replace Docker Desktop. But I am seeing a lot of progress on Podman and Rancher and a few others, and some of the larger tech companies are also building in-house replacements. A lot of the people who had to scramble to find a replacement are not happy about it. In…

I’m just getting really tired of people thinking good software should be free and all the expertise and hard work that goes into something like Docker isn’t worth paying for. Docker provides a ton of value for very little money. Why shouldn’t I, as someone who makes a living writing software, pay others for the same hard work they’re doing?

If you can’t be bothered to pay for anything, why should anyone pay you for your software?

Post reply on HN