5 ms·

> The pricing model of this business means there’s a likely 50/50 chance of it closing in ~12 months because not enough customers choose the paid option. I thi

> The pricing model of this business means there’s a likely 50/50 chance of it closing in ~12 months because not enough customers choose the paid option. I think we went too far from the initial point. Nevertheless the cost of such service is low enough that it can be maintained easily, even without a significant revenue number. > It’s not normal to submit that as “news”. It depends on the definition of news I guess. The article brings another point of view, though discutable. The promotion happens only at the end, in a reasonable way. > Every language I know has an easy to use wrapper/functionality for strong password hashing. Again the password hashing is just an aspect of an authentication system.

stephenr 7y ago
Your business model is part of why I think it’s bad advice: every third party service used is an operational liability. The less standardised the integration, the harder it is to swap to a competitor if required. The more standardised the integration, the easier it is. To use your email argument earlier: if a company doesn’t want to handle its own mail servers (which is a common choice these days) the cost of moving between vendors can be pretty low. A few DNS records and some config/environment vars, and voila. It’s very possible to do it with zero downtime.
- nguyenkims 7y ago
  I’m not sure to follow your points. The technology is based on oauth2/openid standard which would allow developers to switch quite easily. The business model is subscription based which is pretty standard. Sending email is not just about « clean » ip address or passing by a third party provider.For example some email clients can display the emails differently so one need to take this into account. Anw I don’t think the discussion will lead to anything. Again the article represents a point of view that some will not agree and I totally understand.

stephenr 7y ago

Your business model is part of why I think it’s bad advice: every third party service used is an operational liability. The less standardised the integration, the harder it is to swap to a competitor if required. The more standardised the integration, the easier it is. To use your email argument earlier: if a company doesn’t want to handle its own mail servers (which is a common choice these days) the cost of moving between vendors can be pretty low. A few DNS records and some config/environment vars, and voila. It’s very possible to do it with zero downtime.

nguyenkims 7y ago
I’m not sure to follow your points. The technology is based on oauth2/openid standard which would allow developers to switch quite easily. The business model is subscription based which is pretty standard. Sending email is not just about « clean » ip address or passing by a third party provider.For example some email clients can display the emails differently so one need to take this into account. Anw I don’t think the discussion will lead to anything. Again the article represents a point of view that some will not agree and I totally understand.