3 ms·

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, revenu

by 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.
  - nickjj 5y ago
    With Docker, even if 1 dev spent 2 days coming up with a perfect solution that would allow all 7 devs to move away from DD without wasting 1 second of productivity you're still losing out vs sticking with DD at their new annual rates. To me that's a very strong business case. > 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? Personally, I'll worry about a future notice when it happens. A meteor could wipe out all of humanity tomorrow but I try not to think of "what ifs".

by zmmmmm 5y ago

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.
- nickjj 5y ago
  With Docker, even if 1 dev spent 2 days coming up with a perfect solution that would allow all 7 devs to move away from DD without wasting 1 second of productivity you're still losing out vs sticking with DD at their new annual rates. To me that's a very strong business case. > 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? Personally, I'll worry about a future notice when it happens. A meteor could wipe out all of humanity tomorrow but I try not to think of "what ifs".