Self-Hosting Still Pays • Hacker News Board

Re: Self-Hosting Still Pays

#341

Post by anthony_barker » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

Zelphyr wrote: post #8

I see so often developers state something along the lines of, "We need to go with AWS!" (sometimes substituting AWS with GCP or Azure) and the reason they always give is "scalability". 99% of the time, what they're building not only doesn't need to scale to that degree but they somehow seem to think that it's always inherently cheaper. Meanwhile, when I build something for a client my first go-to is something like Di…

Main pro for me was free network gear. Servers are more expensive that self hosting - but I don't need to buy routers and switches or some expensive HP blade server that has internalized switches.

Re: Self-Hosting Still Pays

#342

Post by dcolkitt » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 10:57 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #257

dcolkitt wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 99% of the time, what they're building not only doesn't need to scale to that degree but they somehow seem to think that it's always inherently cheaper. Here's the thing though. For most startups, 99% of the value comes from the long right-tail of that 1% chance of explosive viral growth out of left-field. You're right, most companies aren't ever going to need that kind of overnight scalability. But most of those s…

> Without that possibility it's not worth showing up at the table. I'd argue this mentality is exactly why so many startups fail, and fail hard . They over-optimize for being one of the "lucky few" and under-optimize for actual sustainability.

I agree with this, but not every startup's business model has the luxury of operating under that calculus. Particularly in markets with network effects or other winner-take-all dynamics. You're either first or you're dead. And at least one of your competitors will be investing big on VC-powered hyper growth. Slow and sustainable growth may increase short-term survival chances, but guarantees that you lose in the long-term.

If Instagram or AirBnb didn't plan for rapid scalability, and focused on short-term sustainability instead, they'd almost certainly be footnotes. It doesn't mean that a startup pursuing an expensive hyper-growth scalability strategy is a good investment. But a startup building a social network or B2C marketplace will never conquer the network effects without that ingredient.

Re: Self-Hosting Still Pays

#343

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 8:06 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #342

yellowapple wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without that possibility it's not worth showing up at the table. I'd argue this mentality is exactly why so many startups fail, and fail hard . They over-optimize for being one of the "lucky few" and under-optimize for actual sustainability.

I agree with this, but not every startup's business model has the luxury of operating under that calculus. Particularly in markets with network effects or other winner-take-all dynamics. You're either first or you're dead. And at least one of your competitors will be investing big on VC-powered hyper growth. Slow and sustainable growth may increase short-term survival chances, but guarantees that you lose in the long…

> Slow and sustainable growth may increase short-term survival chances, but guarantees that you lose in the long-term.

I'm arguing the exact opposite: that slow and sustainable growth is exactly how you maximize long-term success.

And there are very, very few markets that are truly "winner-take-all". They only seem that way because everybody's doing the exact thing against which I'm warning: trying to emulate and catch up to already-big players instead of carving out their niche and playing the long game.

> If Instagram or AirBnb didn't plan for rapid scalability, and focused on short-term sustainability instead, they'd almost certainly be footnotes.

Statistically speaking, they'd almost certainly have been footnotes anyway. That's the nature of startups that pursue VC-powered hypergrowth: you're counting on a heck of a lot of luck.

(And not that I'd be complaining much if those companies were footnotes, either; AirBnb in particular has done a great job of exacerbating housing crises around the world, and Instagram - like most social networks - seems to rely entirely on throwing every dark pattern imaginable at its users, even before Facebook bought it. Good riddance to the both of 'em.)