7 ms·
Except you don't need Docker Inc. for that. Many container runtimes exist now, the user experience is very easy to replicate. Plus, their cloud doesn't seem to
by throwaway0071 9y ago
Except you don't need Docker Inc. for that. Many container runtimes exist now, the user experience is very easy to replicate. Plus, their cloud doesn't seem to be making any money. So I too have trouble understanding where this valuation is coming from.
- ransom1538 9y agoSure. You can host your own github too. But the future will be containers. They seem pretty good at that.
- smt88 9y agoYou can host your own GitLab*, not your own Github. Also, a lot of the value of Github is social. You can only get that (after a certain point) by paying Github money. By contrast, you can get 100% of the value of the Docker community without paying a cent to Docker, Inc.
- keeran 9y agoFWIW you can host your own GitHub https://enterprise.github.com https://enterprise.github.com
- VT_Drew 9y ago$21 a month per user.....to host it on my own hardware....no thanks. If I am hosting on my own hardware then you get a one-time-fee, none of this subscription nonsense.
- mosdave 9y agoglad I'm not the only one to find this subscription BS patently insulting.
- inferiorhuman 9y agoYou're not a 1Password user, are you? They are pushing the subscription model super hard.
- alfalfasprout 9y agoand this is important because a good deal of tech companies rely on self-hosted GHE or hosted Github.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mbreese 9y agoThe question isn't if Docker the company will be successful in the future -- it's will they be as successful as that valuation suggests by selling support contracts.
- zjaffee 9y agoThe kind of companies that spend large amounts of money on things like support, think more traditional enterprises, are spending a ton of money on docker's paid services, because they do not have the ability to hire enough engineers to implement something in house.
- inferiorhuman 9y agoI work at a large company. We're not paying Docker for Docker, we're paying Amazon.
- maxfurman 9y agoI think you are underestimating the power of a name brand. Docker is synonymous with containers to a lot of people, and if they want to pay for container support they'll pay Docker. Similar to, as other commenters have said, people pay Red Hat just so they can have someone to complain to when there's a problem.
- radicalbyte 9y agoThis. I've been working in Government recently, it's all containers and it's all Docker. If anything I'm surprised that their valuation isn't higher.
- koolba 9y agoAre they paying Docker (the company) for anything? Or just using containers as a part of a wider software infrastructure? I've been using Docker since early 2014 and they haven't gotten a dime from me. If you count the storage and bandwidth on the public registry I've cost them money.
- jeff_marshall 9y agoIs any employee of Docker, inc. critical to your use of containers? Is any copyrighted, non-OSS Docker, inc. code critical to your operations? Where does the money go.
- hueving 9y agoIt doesn't cost money to use the docker format. Why would they get a high valuation from no revenue?
- throwaway5752 9y agoContainer format brand? I bet Dell/HP/et al thought they had a datacenter advantage with their brands over whitebox, but we've seen how that has worked out. What you described is a services/support company, something Red Hat has worked really really hard not to be over the years (to debatable degree of success). Being their for support vs OSS is not how you get great margins. Anyway, at this level of the stack in prod settings brand won't take you that far.
- gaius 9y agoExcept you don't need Docker Inc. for that Exactly. Build your docker image with the free open source tools then push it onto Azure, for example. How does Docker the company see any revenue here? Or if you are running on-prem with DC/OS in a private cloud. I don't know anyone using Docker's own cloud, and why would you? They need to sell either services or an "Enterprise" version that is better than what you can do without them. I think containers are definitely the future, but I also see containers as being just a commodity, no more exciting that Makefiles and RPM are now. The money will be in running them, and Azure, AWS et al will have that stitched up.
- praneshp 9y agoDocker has at least one product (Docker data center) that is aimed at enterprises. I know because I was almost going to go work there on that product. It's not just a container company.
- notruthallowed 9y agoLone programmers tend to never look at things from the perspective of large organizations.
- thinbeige 9y ago> user experience is very easy to replicate Wrong. The built-in Docker Swarm has currently the easiest UI for container orchestration (there is still stuff which could be done better though but still). This paired with sensible defaults and batteries included, such as a load balancer make Docker the clear winner and apparantly nobody has been able to replicate the UX. I know k8s has a bigger market share but is also way more complex. Edit: Why the downvotes? Afraid that your k8s know-how will drop in market value? Please reply with valid counter arguments instead of this maddening silent downvoting. If I was wrong let me know where and why.
- kuschku 9y agoThe problem there is in the Enterprise market, which Docker is targeting, K8s is far better suited.
- xorcist 9y agoNot only is Kubernetes in a better place than Swarm, the core Docker engine is only a cog in that machine. Should the need arise it would be trivial for them to swap it out with another own container engine. Kubernetes is the magic sauce, not Docker.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- InTheArena 9y agoThe attitude that docker is pointless and kubernetes is amazing despite Docker has been consistent from A vocal minority of the kubernetes community and it’s self serving and getting a little annoying. Is docker perfect? no. Swarm has been an absolute disaster. API stability has been dramatically undervalued. There is room for containers to grow, and their power is nowhere near tapped out. There still a lot of room for improvement on the containerization space, and docker is going to drive that, whether the kubernetes crowd likes that or not. Kubernetes is amazing and gives us a real chance to have an operating system for the data center. Kubernetes itself, despite years of investing is still ridiculously difficult to install. It still has an adoption that’s at least two orders of magnitude below baseline docker. The learning curve is still way higher than it should be. Frankly I hope that all involved get their heads out of their asses and build something great rather then continue to muscle in on each other. There is no reason for this pissing match given that it’s the combination of borg and Docker that makes solutions deployed on top of kubernetes amazing.
- nawitus 9y agoSo what is a good replacement for docker?
- bdcravens 9y agoKeep in mind the distinction between running docker containers and what parent said: "You don't need Docker Inc for that"
- bonzini 9y agoOpenShift for example. It uses docker containers and can be used for both application containers and microservices.
- coredog64 9y agoA co-worker who came from AmEx related that they were so unhappy with OpenShift that they dropped the 'f' from the name for nearly every internal discussion.
- InTheArena 9y agoTo be fair, my understanding is that this was open shift 1 & 2. Openshoft three is more or less kubernetes with a few additional features.
- sitepodmatt 9y agoHaha love it, what were the primary frustrations?
- eatmyshorts 9y agorkt, containerd, LXC, runC, OpenShift. There are others, too. rkt and OpenShift seem to be the most common ones that aren't Docker.
- adictator 9y agoOpenshift uses docker under the hood. It is an orchestration wrapper around docker.
- computerex 9y agoMost major cloud providers provide support for docker and private docker registries out of the box.