4 ms·

Launch feels like just yesterday! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935458 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935458

danso 9y ago
Top comment in that thread is an expression of hesitation over the pricing. Looks like they kept largely the same scheme over their lifetime, except by replacing the next step up from the $99 tier -- $299 for 50 servers -- with a $499 for 75 servers: http://web.archive.org/web/20151205162125/https://appcanary.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20151205162125/https://appcanary.... http://web.archive.org/web/20171026173951/https://appcanary.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20171026173951/https://appcanary.... I like the idea of smartly compiling and packaging vulnerabilities and building a business off of that. But was the pricing competitive to what a company devops employee would typically spend in monitoring this? It looks like they provided monitoring and reports with these plans but not anything else on top of sending the alerts.
- lbotos 9y ago
  I assume that's why they were acquired. At this point, they were a little bit more of a "feature" than a product. I suspect this tech is driving vuln alerts on repos: https://github.com/blog/2470-introducing-security-alerts-on-github https://github.com/blog/2470-introducing-security-alerts-on-...
  - dewey 9y ago
    > There, we’ll be working on expanding GitHub’s security tooling, like their recently announced vulnerable dependency alerting. You don't have to suspect, it's in the article :)
    - phillmv 9y ago
      I would hate to take credit for work I didn't do, so I would just like to quickly set the record straight: We had nothing to do with that feature! We legit joined just now. But it certainly demonstrated a certain synergy between our skillset and GitHub's feature roadmap ;).
    - ontoillogical 9y ago
      Alas, it’s in the future tense. We can’t take credit for the current security offerings - it was the work of our soon-to-be coworkers at GitHub.

danso 9y ago

Top comment in that thread is an expression of hesitation over the pricing. Looks like they kept largely the same scheme over their lifetime, except by replacing the next step up from the $99 tier -- $299 for 50 servers -- with a $499 for 75 servers: http://web.archive.org/web/20151205162125/https://appcanary.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20151205162125/https://appcanary.... http://web.archive.org/web/20171026173951/https://appcanary.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20171026173951/https://appcanary.... I like the idea of smartly compiling and packaging vulnerabilities and building a business off of that. But was the pricing competitive to what a company devops employee would typically spend in monitoring this? It looks like they provided monitoring and reports with these plans but not anything else on top of sending the alerts.

lbotos 9y ago
I assume that's why they were acquired. At this point, they were a little bit more of a "feature" than a product. I suspect this tech is driving vuln alerts on repos: https://github.com/blog/2470-introducing-security-alerts-on-github https://github.com/blog/2470-introducing-security-alerts-on-...
- dewey 9y ago
  > There, we’ll be working on expanding GitHub’s security tooling, like their recently announced vulnerable dependency alerting. You don't have to suspect, it's in the article :)
  - phillmv 9y ago
    I would hate to take credit for work I didn't do, so I would just like to quickly set the record straight: We had nothing to do with that feature! We legit joined just now. But it certainly demonstrated a certain synergy between our skillset and GitHub's feature roadmap ;).
  - ontoillogical 9y ago
    Alas, it’s in the future tense. We can’t take credit for the current security offerings - it was the work of our soon-to-be coworkers at GitHub.