Live data from Hacker News

We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

docker.com

91–100 of 334 posts

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#91

The third sentence in their apology is "This impacted less than 2% of our users." What is that supposed to convey? It feels like a handwave. 'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.'

The "2% of our users" is indeed misleading since most users don't run organizations, and it's mainly orgs that were affected. A better metric would be what % of orgs were impacted.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#92
post #6

The third sentence in their apology is "This impacted less than 2% of our users." What is that supposed to convey? It feels like a handwave. 'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.'

One of the difficulties of public relations is communicating to multiple audiences at once. One of Docker’s audiences are the paying customers who outside that 2% and would want some assurance that if docker makes errors, those errors are smaller in magnitude. This statement seems like it is aimed at assuaging the worries of that audience. Is it good practice? I do not know.

Can't they say something like "a small and important group", yada yada, etc. Just laying out the % alone is derisive and pointless.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#93
post #61

It's almost becoming a cliche for companies to release damage control follow-ups like this after they pull a bait and switch. It's always "we're sorry that we didn't communicate our bait and switch effectively". Not we're sorry that we pulled a bait and switch. We're sorry you didn't understand the value in this bait and switch. It's your fault, actually. But we're sorry you're angry. Now stop giving us negative atte…

The forces of capitalism reward this, it will continue to happen as long as we pick pure capitalism as a system, and keep assigning values to companies purely on financials with no consideration toward their ability to empathize and communicate.

This feels like a win for capitalism to me. The actually innovative Docker did is open source, and replacements already exist for DockerHub. So, we get the good tech they created, and the company with the user-hostile choices dies, or becomes irrelevant.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#95

Previous communication: > If you don't upgrade to a paid subscription, Docker will retain your organization data for 30 days, after which it will be subject to deletion. During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images. New communication: > We’d also like to clarify that public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete them. We’re sorry that our initial…

Exactly ! I remember the original email mentioned deletion and now they say "we never said that". Time to get rid of Docker in our world.

im looking forward to hipster posts about compiling and running your stack directly on a machine. probably one, and it'll be faster. that'll be great

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#96
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really misleading though, as it only reflect the owners of the images. Presumably I should count as an affected user if I don't own the image, but try to download it.

I think that's what they're trying to say: you're not an affected user if it's not your image, because you can't download it in the first place.

Meaning I can't download it because their account was zapped after the 30 days? I could certainly download it before all this.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#97

Previous communication: > If you don't upgrade to a paid subscription, Docker will retain your organization data for 30 days, after which it will be subject to deletion. During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images. New communication: > We’d also like to clarify that public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete them. We’re sorry that our initial…

That depends on what "organization data" means. Does that phrasing cover the images or just the existence of the organization in Docker (i.e. deleted organization)?

> During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images.

Pretty unambiguously means "after that period you may not have access to any of your public images".

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#98
post #13

Ah, good ole Docker. When they did the "it's not free anymore" rugpull on Docker Desktop, I couldn't use it at work anymore since they wouldn't invoice us for less than a 50 seat license. Unfortunately, a lot of businesses won't buy things without invoicing for legal reasons. It really upset me because I had a pretty solid workflow with docker desktop on a mac. Now I can't use that anymore. I am not surprised they co…

On the other side of the spectrum, working somewhere that would have purchased thousands of licenses, they were equally unaware of what larger corporations want or need for such arrangements.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#99

Previous communication: > If you don't upgrade to a paid subscription, Docker will retain your organization data for 30 days, after which it will be subject to deletion. During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images. New communication: > We’d also like to clarify that public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete them. We’re sorry that our initial…

(from Docker DevRel team)

> Given these statements directly contradict each other

Actually... they aren't contradictory. The organization data will be retained for 30 days and is subject to deletion. That data includes the teams, memberships, etc. But, it wasn't clear what we were going to do about the images. Keeping the public images is important as many other images build on top of them.

> It feels like they changed the actual strategy

We recognize it might feel that way, so apologies. But, that's part of where we are recognize it wasn't clear the technical details... we didn't talk at all about the images. After the feedback, we recognized this, so wanted to make that clear.

Post reply on HN