3 ms·

I can honestly see why you would do this, but I’m not sure the over all ecosystem would benefit from this. Consider the user’s perspective. If they’ve decided

I can honestly see why you would do this, but I’m not sure the over all ecosystem would benefit from this. Consider the user’s perspective. If they’ve decided to be locked into your stack and your company dies (/becomes prohibitively expensive/etc), they can still host the stuff themselves on premise - a welcome step out, but also quite expensive. There are reasons they wanted cloud hosting in the first place, after all. They can not get another cloud service. You may be able to somewhat work around this problem by doing a deal like the Qt Company has with KDE: If you can’t meet certain criteria, the code will be released under an open license.

asim 5y ago
The idea here is we can potentially partner with existing cloud providers who do not have the breadth of services AWS offers. People don't want to be locked in, they want to know they can still take the services with them but you're right they also don't want to manage it themselves anymore. I think this is where there's prime opportunity to work with the Hetzners, OVH's, Linode's of the world.
- verdverm 5y ago
  I honestly think the vendor lock-in argument is overdone. I don't really care that I cannot move from GCP to AWS. I picked my vendor and don't see myself moving. Some companies are looking at hybrid solutions, still using vendor tech and relying on that is not something that is outright avoided, rather often embraced due to decrease in operational overhead. The VPS "cloud" is the more cost optimizing, DIY group, which I know less about the motivations and market for.