3 ms·

For everyone who is against this change, can you please write up why? For a ton of small companies (anyone making $10 million or less per year) nothing is goin

by nickjj 5y ago

For everyone who is against this change, can you please write up why? For a ton of small companies (anyone making $10 million or less per year) nothing is going to change and DD is still free to use. If you're at a big organization with let's say 200 developers chances are your company makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Even Docker's most expensive business plan would cost you 200 * $21 = $4,200 month. Payroll for your 200 developers will likely be over 3 million dollars a month. How can you be upset with paying 4k a month? That's almost nothing relative to other expenses. Realistically I'm surprised Docker is charging so little for their business plan. Making 4k on 200 developers at a 300 million+ company is not asking a lot.

kcb 5y ago
Because procurement processes suck and developers don't want to deal with them. When it's something from Microsoft, Google, Amazon, it's not a problem because those deals are handled at a level that developers don't interact much with and are ingrained as business critical. There's no way we're going to have a contract with Docker by January so I fully expect a "Please uninstall Docker Desktop" email long before that.
- nickjj 5y ago
  What if you asked the person who would write that email to instead ask Docker if they can extend the grace period for you until you can get a contract set up? Since it's unclear if / how Docker can enforce their TOS I'm guessing they would be happy to extend it because the other avenues lead to you not using DD or using it without paying.
  - Closi 5y ago
    > What if you asked the person who would write that email to instead ask Docker if they can extend the grace period for you until you can get a contract set up? I think OP's principle is that it will probably just be easier to switch tools than to push the $42k annual spend through the organisational mud to get it approved (depending on how muddy the mud is). This is particularly true for a single developer that wants to start using docker desktop, if the rest of the org isn't already using it.
mgarciaisaia 5y ago
I'm part of a company that doesn't need to change a thing because of this. I want to move out of Docker services because of the "The new terms take effect on August 31, 2021" part of the email I've just received, even if it's followed by a "with a grace period until January 31, 2022". I'm OK with them trying to get money. I'm not OK with them changing things overnight.
0x500x79 5y ago
I don't get enough out of docker desktop for mac to be worth the 21 dollars a month, personally. It manages a VM and the port mappings/exposure of docker sockets on my behalf. That is something that can be replaced fairly easily and not cost me 5-20 dollars a month. This on top of some of the decisions in the past year like removing the ability to opt out of updates, and the issues that pop up when I don't expect it (crashes, file systems, etc) I am more inclined to find other solutions.
dwaite 5y ago
Because we use containers to share images outside our organization. This reduces the accessibility and thus the value of the entire Docker ecosystem.
darkarmani 5y ago
Extortion. They built an entire community of docker users and then this. it's one thing if we all knew they were oracle. It's another thing for them to turn into Oracle after capturing mindshare.
zmmmmm 5y ago
you jumped from $10m revenue to a 200 developer company with payroll of $3m month in your example. There are tiny companies with $10m revenue (remember, revenue isn't margin and certainly isn't profit). A company could easily have non-employment expenses be 90% of its revenue, so we are talking about $1m or 7-8 person company there on decent salaries. A far cry from the 200 devs you give as an example. However as to "why" - because docker's precise value proposition is its ubiquity and universality. The exact reason people have adopted it is because everyone can run it, no matter who, no matter where. So this compromises the main value proposition of Docker. People will now find alternatives because if I can't distribute my application using docker and know the person at the other end can run it (because now they need a license that they don't have) then it lost virtually its whole point to me.
- nickjj 5y ago
  > A company could easily have non-employment expenses be 90% of its revenue, so we are talking about $1m or 7-8 person company there on decent salaries Can you give a few real world examples where a $10 million / year revenue company with 7 employees would have difficulty paying $147 a month (or $49 if they went for the $7 / month instead)? With the $7 / month plan (if you only care about DD), the entire annual cost for all 7 devs is less than hiring 1 developer for 1 day at a normal US dev salary.
  - zmmmmm 5y ago
    Ok, so you're asking about a different point, now, the difficulty of paying. In that case the difficulties arise because of corporate gatekeepers, licensing stewards and general policies governing software licensing. Typically my organisation would not approve this sort of purchase without a business case and justification - not least because we are a not-for-profit and any money not going to our cause is scrutinised heavily (the thing donors absolutely hate the most is the idea their money doesn't get to the cause they donated to and instead goes into sinkhole of funding commerical company's bottom lines). Obviously one payment is not too big but as soon as the policy allows one it allows all such things so its effectively opening the gate to all kinds of micro-payments that quickly build up and become entrenched as "essential". Here's a similar analogy ... does your company pay for your parking? Why not, its small compared to your salary right? and it definitely helps you get to work, be more efficient etc? Well its not just about the parking its because that represents a class of purchase that if allowed would tilt the scale towards a massive number of similar types of expenses. So in fact most places will have blanked policies disallowing small purchases. Another question: since the price for Docker Desktop already got arbitrarily changed with no notice, why would you believe that it won't go up in the future? Or get more restrictive in other ways? Once a company executes bad faith one time, continued manifestations of that have to be considered as a risk.
PebblesHD 5y ago
Similar to siblings, our medium sized enterprise has a procurement process best described as ‘avoid if possible’, with the last product we onboarded taking over 15 months from start to finish for around a $50k annual cost. Our likely move will be away from docker because we can’t afford to be paralysed for that long waiting for bureaucrats to make a decision. If docker wants to play like this they will need to be willing to partner with a ‘real’ services company who is already on a range of procurement panels to get a foot in the door, at least in my part of the world. If we could pay this as part of our MSA with a vendor we already use, $50k a year wouldn’t be so bad, but adding a new vendor and pushing that uphill? Not likely for us.

by nickjj 5y ago

kcb 5y ago

Because procurement processes suck and developers don't want to deal with them. When it's something from Microsoft, Google, Amazon, it's not a problem because those deals are handled at a level that developers don't interact much with and are ingrained as business critical. There's no way we're going to have a contract with Docker by January so I fully expect a "Please uninstall Docker Desktop" email long before that.

nickjj 5y ago
What if you asked the person who would write that email to instead ask Docker if they can extend the grace period for you until you can get a contract set up? Since it's unclear if / how Docker can enforce their TOS I'm guessing they would be happy to extend it because the other avenues lead to you not using DD or using it without paying.
- Closi 5y ago
  > What if you asked the person who would write that email to instead ask Docker if they can extend the grace period for you until you can get a contract set up? I think OP's principle is that it will probably just be easier to switch tools than to push the $42k annual spend through the organisational mud to get it approved (depending on how muddy the mud is). This is particularly true for a single developer that wants to start using docker desktop, if the rest of the org isn't already using it.

mgarciaisaia 5y ago

I'm part of a company that doesn't need to change a thing because of this. I want to move out of Docker services because of the "The new terms take effect on August 31, 2021" part of the email I've just received, even if it's followed by a "with a grace period until January 31, 2022". I'm OK with them trying to get money. I'm not OK with them changing things overnight.

0x500x79 5y ago

I don't get enough out of docker desktop for mac to be worth the 21 dollars a month, personally. It manages a VM and the port mappings/exposure of docker sockets on my behalf. That is something that can be replaced fairly easily and not cost me 5-20 dollars a month. This on top of some of the decisions in the past year like removing the ability to opt out of updates, and the issues that pop up when I don't expect it (crashes, file systems, etc) I am more inclined to find other solutions.

dwaite 5y ago

Because we use containers to share images outside our organization. This reduces the accessibility and thus the value of the entire Docker ecosystem.

darkarmani 5y ago

Extortion. They built an entire community of docker users and then this. it's one thing if we all knew they were oracle. It's another thing for them to turn into Oracle after capturing mindshare.

zmmmmm 5y ago

you jumped from $10m revenue to a 200 developer company with payroll of $3m month in your example. There are tiny companies with $10m revenue (remember, revenue isn't margin and certainly isn't profit). A company could easily have non-employment expenses be 90% of its revenue, so we are talking about $1m or 7-8 person company there on decent salaries. A far cry from the 200 devs you give as an example. However as to "why" - because docker's precise value proposition is its ubiquity and universality. The exact reason people have adopted it is because everyone can run it, no matter who, no matter where. So this compromises the main value proposition of Docker. People will now find alternatives because if I can't distribute my application using docker and know the person at the other end can run it (because now they need a license that they don't have) then it lost virtually its whole point to me.

nickjj 5y ago
> A company could easily have non-employment expenses be 90% of its revenue, so we are talking about $1m or 7-8 person company there on decent salaries Can you give a few real world examples where a $10 million / year revenue company with 7 employees would have difficulty paying $147 a month (or $49 if they went for the $7 / month instead)? With the $7 / month plan (if you only care about DD), the entire annual cost for all 7 devs is less than hiring 1 developer for 1 day at a normal US dev salary.
- zmmmmm 5y ago
  Ok, so you're asking about a different point, now, the difficulty of paying. In that case the difficulties arise because of corporate gatekeepers, licensing stewards and general policies governing software licensing. Typically my organisation would not approve this sort of purchase without a business case and justification - not least because we are a not-for-profit and any money not going to our cause is scrutinised heavily (the thing donors absolutely hate the most is the idea their money doesn't get to the cause they donated to and instead goes into sinkhole of funding commerical company's bottom lines). Obviously one payment is not too big but as soon as the policy allows one it allows all such things so its effectively opening the gate to all kinds of micro-payments that quickly build up and become entrenched as "essential". Here's a similar analogy ... does your company pay for your parking? Why not, its small compared to your salary right? and it definitely helps you get to work, be more efficient etc? Well its not just about the parking its because that represents a class of purchase that if allowed would tilt the scale towards a massive number of similar types of expenses. So in fact most places will have blanked policies disallowing small purchases. Another question: since the price for Docker Desktop already got arbitrarily changed with no notice, why would you believe that it won't go up in the future? Or get more restrictive in other ways? Once a company executes bad faith one time, continued manifestations of that have to be considered as a risk.

PebblesHD 5y ago

Similar to siblings, our medium sized enterprise has a procurement process best described as ‘avoid if possible’, with the last product we onboarded taking over 15 months from start to finish for around a $50k annual cost. Our likely move will be away from docker because we can’t afford to be paralysed for that long waiting for bureaucrats to make a decision. If docker wants to play like this they will need to be willing to partner with a ‘real’ services company who is already on a range of procurement panels to get a foot in the door, at least in my part of the world. If we could pay this as part of our MSA with a vendor we already use, $50k a year wouldn’t be so bad, but adding a new vendor and pushing that uphill? Not likely for us.