5 ms·

My problem is less that it is happening but how we got here. If docker desktop was originally subscription based or they said that they wanted to make it subsc

My problem is less that it is happening but how we got here. If docker desktop was originally subscription based or they said that they wanted to make it subscription based later than the reaction would be very different. But Docker as a company has failed multiple times now to attempt to make money and this feels like a hostage situation by taking away a tool that many now rely on. They tried to go the support route like RedHat and others, but who needed just Docker support? Especially when there orchestration layer was basically DOA with k8s available. Last year (?) they started limiting pulls from docker hub unless you paid up. Which spawned companies like AWS to announce their own free alternative/mirror. At some point with in the last few months they made it so without paying I was forced to update docker desktop or constantly have to click snooze. I was perfectly happy with what it was currently doing and had no desire to update. But they added that artificial limitation after release. Now they are charging for something that was once free without really explaining any benefits? I think the reaction is perfectly valid given the companies track record. There are likely other examples they have tried but likely just didn't notice. Since Docker is in a situation where docker itself is just not what most of us really think about. It is the orchestration and docker is just a path to that. Edit: Also not super enthused about the idea that I now need to ask during a job interview what software I will be able to have locally for part of my workflow.

yunohn 5y ago
> Now they are charging for something that was once free without really explaining any benefits? It was free when they could afford it. Now it’s not, because they do indeed, need money. Why is that so wrong?
- judofyr 5y ago
  It’s not “wrong”, but it’s annoying. They’re asking me to invest into their platform, but they’re also constantly increasing the price and/or making it more restrictive. This makes it hard for me to understand the long term cost of a commitment.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    They’re now charging for the GUI they have developed, while the core of Docker is still free. Someone has to fund continued development, asking companies for a fee feels quite logical. Seems to me that a value-add tool makes sense to commercialize. It doesn’t provide a large array of features yet, but this funding will help with that. If you don’t find it useful enough for the fee, clearly you’re better off with CLI or alternative GUIs.
    - nerdjon 5y ago
      What features? Are people really asking for more features for Docker Desktop? I know for me I install it, let it do its setup, and then I do everything from the Docker CLI as if I was on a linux machine. It has k8s built in if you want to add that also. We are not talking about a tool here that needs a ton of functionality. But they have become (seemingly at least) the standard tool to have a more consistent Docker setup on Mac or Windows compared to where it will eventually be deployed (Linux). Once you have it setup you should be using the CLI. I feel like they are severely overestimating the software, I am anticipating several open source alternatives to quickly become available since it wouldn't (or shouldn't) change your workflow at all to put in another alternative. Edit: TBH I often forget docker desktop is sitting there until it starts asking me to update... so this is a perfect opportunity to replace it.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        You’re the perfect out of market example. Use other tools, and be content. Of course, they’re not charging individuals, so I’m not sure why you’re complaining.
        nerdjon 5y ago
        Because I work at a company that I would have to justify the subscription too?
        yunohn 5y ago
- _jal 5y ago
  One important question to ask yourself is, what happens next time they want more money? Just how much of a hostage are you willing to be?
  - yunohn 5y ago
    This can be said of literally any paid service. It’s not much of an argument, except on these kinds of HN threads.
    - _jal 5y ago
      A reasonable point. It is, however, much easier to say it of a service that has a history of flailing around about how and what they want money for than one that has a consistent history of not being surprising.
      - mbreese 5y ago
        The more nuanced argument is that the reaction to Docker’s change to charging for the Desktop version is less about the money and more about the stability of the company itself. Surprising your customer base by charging for a previously free product shows that the financials of the company aren’t very stable. This, in turn, is a red flag to rely too heavily on this particular product. Which can then start to cause a downward spiral, if not managed correctly. But honestly, we already knew this about Docker. They’ve always had issues trying to figure out their business plan.
        yunohn 5y ago
        Unfortunately, despite HN’s insistence that FOSS is sustainable - they have realized the truth, as seen by replies with views similar to yours, that Devs are too stingy to pay and support Dev tools.
        dijit 5y ago
        "Depends". IntelliJ and Visual Studio are doing perfectly well. Maybe not every tiny little tool should be a subscription. (yes, docker is a tiny tool compared to, say, linux, or kubernetes)
- pyrrhotech 5y ago
  It's not wrong, and it's also not wrong of any previous user to decide to move to a free alternative. Let the free market decide whether they are charging a fair price for the value they provide or if there is more value in other options. For as smart as many people are on HN, I've rarely come across a more clueless bunch of folks as far as basic economics
  - yunohn 5y ago
    When comments condescendingly say “free market”, it’s a red flag that you’re going to read a “wise” rant.
- andrewstuart2 5y ago
  Generally, this pattern has a name: bait and switch. I'm not saying that the company shouldn't make money, but I'm saying that it's widely recognized that providing something free and changing your mind later will inevitably degrade your users' trust in you. So don't be surprised when there's backlash and migration away from your services and tools if you decide to try to turn formerly free services and tools into paid versions with no additional incentive.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    I know that HN loves calling everything a bait and switch, but this is not that. It’s a useful product - despite so many here that apparently use it but insist that it’s useless. Docker wants to grow their revenue and is going to start charging companies (who also presumably have some revenue) a fee for the product. Absolutely normal business strategy.
    - andrewstuart2 5y ago
      I haven't said it's useless, and I don't think I've seen anyone's comments calling it useless. But the reality is, what docker does is not complicated. It was not replaced because there wasn't a real reason to. If you built a docker competitor that was also free but did exactly the same things, you'd have been asked "why?" Now, the answer to that question exists. It's no longer free, which was the primary reason anyone just kept using it when (especially today) it doesn't offer much over alternatives.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        Why is the goalpost “Docker” suddenly? That’s still fully free. This whole thread is about the convenient GUI, which is what everyone is complaining about lacking features or purpose.
        andrewstuart2 5y ago
        Docker Desktop, I mean. I personally haven't ever used the GUI except to deal with their new autoupdate prompts. I, and many others, just need something to set up the VM and orchestrate things so that `docker` in my terminal does as expected when I'm using my work-issued Mac. On Linux this is a non-issue, yes.
swiley 5y ago
Meh. GUIs and other frilly OSX crap are a real pain to maintain. Paying for them makes sense.

yunohn 5y ago

> Now they are charging for something that was once free without really explaining any benefits? It was free when they could afford it. Now it’s not, because they do indeed, need money. Why is that so wrong?

judofyr 5y ago
It’s not “wrong”, but it’s annoying. They’re asking me to invest into their platform, but they’re also constantly increasing the price and/or making it more restrictive. This makes it hard for me to understand the long term cost of a commitment.
- yunohn 5y ago
  They’re now charging for the GUI they have developed, while the core of Docker is still free. Someone has to fund continued development, asking companies for a fee feels quite logical. Seems to me that a value-add tool makes sense to commercialize. It doesn’t provide a large array of features yet, but this funding will help with that. If you don’t find it useful enough for the fee, clearly you’re better off with CLI or alternative GUIs.
  - nerdjon 5y ago
    What features? Are people really asking for more features for Docker Desktop? I know for me I install it, let it do its setup, and then I do everything from the Docker CLI as if I was on a linux machine. It has k8s built in if you want to add that also. We are not talking about a tool here that needs a ton of functionality. But they have become (seemingly at least) the standard tool to have a more consistent Docker setup on Mac or Windows compared to where it will eventually be deployed (Linux). Once you have it setup you should be using the CLI. I feel like they are severely overestimating the software, I am anticipating several open source alternatives to quickly become available since it wouldn't (or shouldn't) change your workflow at all to put in another alternative. Edit: TBH I often forget docker desktop is sitting there until it starts asking me to update... so this is a perfect opportunity to replace it.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      You’re the perfect out of market example. Use other tools, and be content. Of course, they’re not charging individuals, so I’m not sure why you’re complaining.
      - nerdjon 5y ago
        Because I work at a company that I would have to justify the subscription too?
        yunohn 5y ago
_jal 5y ago
One important question to ask yourself is, what happens next time they want more money? Just how much of a hostage are you willing to be?
- yunohn 5y ago
  This can be said of literally any paid service. It’s not much of an argument, except on these kinds of HN threads.
  - _jal 5y ago
    A reasonable point. It is, however, much easier to say it of a service that has a history of flailing around about how and what they want money for than one that has a consistent history of not being surprising.
    - mbreese 5y ago
      The more nuanced argument is that the reaction to Docker’s change to charging for the Desktop version is less about the money and more about the stability of the company itself. Surprising your customer base by charging for a previously free product shows that the financials of the company aren’t very stable. This, in turn, is a red flag to rely too heavily on this particular product. Which can then start to cause a downward spiral, if not managed correctly. But honestly, we already knew this about Docker. They’ve always had issues trying to figure out their business plan.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        Unfortunately, despite HN’s insistence that FOSS is sustainable - they have realized the truth, as seen by replies with views similar to yours, that Devs are too stingy to pay and support Dev tools.
        dijit 5y ago
        "Depends". IntelliJ and Visual Studio are doing perfectly well. Maybe not every tiny little tool should be a subscription. (yes, docker is a tiny tool compared to, say, linux, or kubernetes)
pyrrhotech 5y ago
It's not wrong, and it's also not wrong of any previous user to decide to move to a free alternative. Let the free market decide whether they are charging a fair price for the value they provide or if there is more value in other options. For as smart as many people are on HN, I've rarely come across a more clueless bunch of folks as far as basic economics
- yunohn 5y ago
  When comments condescendingly say “free market”, it’s a red flag that you’re going to read a “wise” rant.
andrewstuart2 5y ago
Generally, this pattern has a name: bait and switch. I'm not saying that the company shouldn't make money, but I'm saying that it's widely recognized that providing something free and changing your mind later will inevitably degrade your users' trust in you. So don't be surprised when there's backlash and migration away from your services and tools if you decide to try to turn formerly free services and tools into paid versions with no additional incentive.
- yunohn 5y ago
  I know that HN loves calling everything a bait and switch, but this is not that. It’s a useful product - despite so many here that apparently use it but insist that it’s useless. Docker wants to grow their revenue and is going to start charging companies (who also presumably have some revenue) a fee for the product. Absolutely normal business strategy.
  - andrewstuart2 5y ago
    I haven't said it's useless, and I don't think I've seen anyone's comments calling it useless. But the reality is, what docker does is not complicated. It was not replaced because there wasn't a real reason to. If you built a docker competitor that was also free but did exactly the same things, you'd have been asked "why?" Now, the answer to that question exists. It's no longer free, which was the primary reason anyone just kept using it when (especially today) it doesn't offer much over alternatives.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      Why is the goalpost “Docker” suddenly? That’s still fully free. This whole thread is about the convenient GUI, which is what everyone is complaining about lacking features or purpose.
      - andrewstuart2 5y ago
        Docker Desktop, I mean. I personally haven't ever used the GUI except to deal with their new autoupdate prompts. I, and many others, just need something to set up the VM and orchestrate things so that `docker` in my terminal does as expected when I'm using my work-issued Mac. On Linux this is a non-issue, yes.

swiley 5y ago

Meh. GUIs and other frilly OSX crap are a real pain to maintain. Paying for them makes sense.