8 ms·

That's not a billion dollars company though.

by luckydata 8y ago

lyjackal 8y ago
Seems like it's more valuable and ubiquitous than mongo db, and their valuations exceed 1.5B
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Ubiquitous does not equal value. Docker doesn’t do anything you can’t do with lxc tooling and an object store (registry). That’s the benefit: containers are free, the orchestration is free, and the registry tooling is free and easily replicated. Mongo equally so (JSON in PostgreSQL). These valuations are fantasy.
  - CloudNetworking 8y ago
    Building a scalable service on top of that is not free, nor easy :)
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      You're spending those scaling dollars regardless (developers with devops knowledge, infrastructure/SRE folks). Better to spend it on competent staff than a company lighting VC money on fire, no?
      - volkk 8y ago
        i think it's a bit more complicated than that. very skilled developers that know this tech won't jump ship to many borderline broke startups which could easily just get started with docker with less than 'rockstar' devs
      - CloudNetworking 8y ago
        > Better to spend it on competent staff than a company lighting VC money on fire, no? False dichotomy though. You either acknowledge that getting a vendor to do that for you also implies competent staff or you acknowledge that hiring "competent staff" is not like flipping a switch and requires training, ramp-up time, few wrong hires, getting managers to guide the teams, etc I'm not sure which way is better, but I don't think the industry has decided either :)
unfunco 8y ago
It's already a billion dollar company. https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/docker-has-raised-92-million-in-new-funding/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/docker-has-raised-92-milli...
- detaro 8y ago
  That's the point of parent and the article: It has a billion dollar valuation, but they doubt it can back that up with actual revenue and profits.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Of course not, a product company like docker is built for acquisition.
    - mbreese 8y ago
      I can think of a few companies that might want to buy Docker. I can think of no company that would buy it at a billion dollar valuation.
      - nodesocket 8y ago
        I can think of a few companies that may pay an absurd vaulation for Docker; IBM and Microsoft.
      - raesene9 8y ago
        Microsoft's containerization strategy heavily depends on Docker (they've got a licensing deal so that Windows server can use Docker EE for free) they might well pay good money to by Docker
      - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
        Didn't IBM just buy Red Hat for $34 Billion? Can you imagine a future where Amazon acquires Docker to optimize it to run on AWS and perhaps perform a bit worse on GCP. Any small advantage you could get in the space would equate to large changes with as ubiquitous Docker is and as large as AWS is.

That's not a billion dollars company though.

lyjackal 8y ago

Seems like it's more valuable and ubiquitous than mongo db, and their valuations exceed 1.5B

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Ubiquitous does not equal value. Docker doesn’t do anything you can’t do with lxc tooling and an object store (registry). That’s the benefit: containers are free, the orchestration is free, and the registry tooling is free and easily replicated. Mongo equally so (JSON in PostgreSQL). These valuations are fantasy.
- CloudNetworking 8y ago
  Building a scalable service on top of that is not free, nor easy :)
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    You're spending those scaling dollars regardless (developers with devops knowledge, infrastructure/SRE folks). Better to spend it on competent staff than a company lighting VC money on fire, no?
    - volkk 8y ago
      i think it's a bit more complicated than that. very skilled developers that know this tech won't jump ship to many borderline broke startups which could easily just get started with docker with less than 'rockstar' devs
    - CloudNetworking 8y ago
      > Better to spend it on competent staff than a company lighting VC money on fire, no? False dichotomy though. You either acknowledge that getting a vendor to do that for you also implies competent staff or you acknowledge that hiring "competent staff" is not like flipping a switch and requires training, ramp-up time, few wrong hires, getting managers to guide the teams, etc I'm not sure which way is better, but I don't think the industry has decided either :)

unfunco 8y ago

It's already a billion dollar company. https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/docker-has-raised-92-million-in-new-funding/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/docker-has-raised-92-milli...

detaro 8y ago
That's the point of parent and the article: It has a billion dollar valuation, but they doubt it can back that up with actual revenue and profits.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Of course not, a product company like docker is built for acquisition.
  - mbreese 8y ago
    I can think of a few companies that might want to buy Docker. I can think of no company that would buy it at a billion dollar valuation.
    - nodesocket 8y ago
      I can think of a few companies that may pay an absurd vaulation for Docker; IBM and Microsoft.
    - raesene9 8y ago
      Microsoft's containerization strategy heavily depends on Docker (they've got a licensing deal so that Windows server can use Docker EE for free) they might well pay good money to by Docker
    - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
      Didn't IBM just buy Red Hat for $34 Billion? Can you imagine a future where Amazon acquires Docker to optimize it to run on AWS and perhaps perform a bit worse on GCP. Any small advantage you could get in the space would equate to large changes with as ubiquitous Docker is and as large as AWS is.