29 ms·

I think calling it clickbait is too harsh. The right headline would be: "Cloudflare announces 3 changes which have the potential to disrupt 3 industries in the

I think calling it clickbait is too harsh. The right headline would be: "Cloudflare announces 3 changes which have the potential to disrupt 3 industries in the near/long future". So it's somewhere in the middle between "totally describing what's inside" vs. clickbait-y.

nuerow 5y ago
> I think calling it clickbait is too harsh. The right headline would be: "Cloudflare announces 3 changes which have the potential to disrupt 3 industries in the near/long future". That's still quite the stretch. A pricing update to not charge egress fees for object storage and some types of streaming is hardly "disruptive", as is catering to the web3 buzzword. I like Cloudflare, but these marketing blurbs start to eat away the goodwill that Cloudflare's technical progresses earn with their hard and quality work.
- lozenge 5y ago
  Note, the author isn't affiliated with Cloudflare. It's not a marketing blurb, this is how people actually talk in SV apparently ;)
  - greatsaas12 5y ago
    Doubt there's an affiliation. The whole article is written from a perspective of how founders can use these features to build their MVPs faster (curious how nobody in the comments mentioned this).
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > A pricing update to not charge egress fees for object storage and some types of streaming is hardly "disruptive" Hum. Do you think the largest cloud providers can outcompete that without completely changing their business plans? Egress costs are always described as the ultimate cloud moat, and the main way those companies lock their clients. I do think there is enough space to disagree here (personally, I have no idea), but the mainstream view is that it fits the (econ-)dictionary definition of disruptive.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Calling it clickbait is generous
snowwrestler 5y ago
The R2 disruption is a reduction in cost. The target of the disruption is Amazon, a company that has decades of experience operating services at break-even or loss to acquire market share. Quite a lot of the coverage seems founded on the idea that the price difference is an unbridgeable moat for Cloudflare. IMO, let’s see. Amazon could lower prices, and/or Cloudflare might need to start charging someone something as volume grows.
- nightpool 5y ago
  If Amazon has to remove egress fees to compete, wouldn't that be a pretty significant disruption to the industry as well? The author's argument isn't that Cloudflare is going to take S3 out of business, it's that removing egress fees makes a whole new class of applications viable. I don't see how the S3 removing egress fees as well would change that argument—it would still be Cloudflare that pushed the storage industry to this new place. In fact, S3 having to remove egress fees to compete would be probably be greater evidence for Cloudflare's disruptive effect :P
- wpietri 5y ago
  This definitely isn't a disruption in the academic sense of the term: https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation But even in the casual sense I don't think it's disruptive. They've introduced a competing service at a modestly lower cost. This won't put AWS out of business. Customers won't switch away en masse. It even won't make a noticeable dent in AWS's quarterly revenues. So this isn't disruption. it's bog-standard business competition. Which I very much welcome.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - x0x0 5y ago
    It's more than modestly lower though in some use cases. https://twitter.com/quinnypig/status/1443028078196711426 https://twitter.com/quinnypig/status/1443028078196711426 Corey compares the cost of storing 1gb of data in s3 vs r2 and serving it to the internet: > If 1 million people download that 1GB this month, my cost with @cloudflare R2 this way rounds up to 13¢. With @awscloud S3 it’s [$53,891.16]

nuerow 5y ago

> I think calling it clickbait is too harsh. The right headline would be: "Cloudflare announces 3 changes which have the potential to disrupt 3 industries in the near/long future". That's still quite the stretch. A pricing update to not charge egress fees for object storage and some types of streaming is hardly "disruptive", as is catering to the web3 buzzword. I like Cloudflare, but these marketing blurbs start to eat away the goodwill that Cloudflare's technical progresses earn with their hard and quality work.

lozenge 5y ago
Note, the author isn't affiliated with Cloudflare. It's not a marketing blurb, this is how people actually talk in SV apparently ;)
- greatsaas12 5y ago
  Doubt there's an affiliation. The whole article is written from a perspective of how founders can use these features to build their MVPs faster (curious how nobody in the comments mentioned this).
marcosdumay 5y ago
> A pricing update to not charge egress fees for object storage and some types of streaming is hardly "disruptive" Hum. Do you think the largest cloud providers can outcompete that without completely changing their business plans? Egress costs are always described as the ultimate cloud moat, and the main way those companies lock their clients. I do think there is enough space to disagree here (personally, I have no idea), but the mainstream view is that it fits the (econ-)dictionary definition of disruptive.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

Calling it clickbait is generous

snowwrestler 5y ago

The R2 disruption is a reduction in cost. The target of the disruption is Amazon, a company that has decades of experience operating services at break-even or loss to acquire market share. Quite a lot of the coverage seems founded on the idea that the price difference is an unbridgeable moat for Cloudflare. IMO, let’s see. Amazon could lower prices, and/or Cloudflare might need to start charging someone something as volume grows.

nightpool 5y ago
If Amazon has to remove egress fees to compete, wouldn't that be a pretty significant disruption to the industry as well? The author's argument isn't that Cloudflare is going to take S3 out of business, it's that removing egress fees makes a whole new class of applications viable. I don't see how the S3 removing egress fees as well would change that argument—it would still be Cloudflare that pushed the storage industry to this new place. In fact, S3 having to remove egress fees to compete would be probably be greater evidence for Cloudflare's disruptive effect :P
wpietri 5y ago
This definitely isn't a disruption in the academic sense of the term: https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation But even in the casual sense I don't think it's disruptive. They've introduced a competing service at a modestly lower cost. This won't put AWS out of business. Customers won't switch away en masse. It even won't make a noticeable dent in AWS's quarterly revenues. So this isn't disruption. it's bog-standard business competition. Which I very much welcome.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- x0x0 5y ago
  It's more than modestly lower though in some use cases. https://twitter.com/quinnypig/status/1443028078196711426 https://twitter.com/quinnypig/status/1443028078196711426 Corey compares the cost of storing 1gb of data in s3 vs r2 and serving it to the internet: > If 1 million people download that 1GB this month, my cost with @cloudflare R2 this way rounds up to 13¢. With @awscloud S3 it’s [$53,891.16]