5 ms·

Did you really, truly think that a product like Docker desktop would stay free forever? This is a fundamental aspect of building software products and companies

Did you really, truly think that a product like Docker desktop would stay free forever? This is a fundamental aspect of building software products and companies. I do not understand how in 2022 we still have people hanging out in tech forums like HN that do not understand this. The first objective of a pre-revenue company is to grow as fast as possible and then either get acquired or start generating revenue, which almost always involves marking up their product. And because of the nature of software, it's easy to build POC's and prototypes that half-work today, with the promise of better functionality and integration in the future. But that tomorrow always comes with a cost. Somehow, folks in this industry seem to be convinced that it's OK for them to turn a profit on their value-add software, but not other people. What are software companies supposed to do? Overcharge today for software that doesn't necessarily work right now? What's the model that companies like Docker should use instead?

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>Did you really, truly think that a product like Docker desktop would stay free forever? You're mistaken here. Nobody has issues paying for software, however people have issues with being baited into a free product to then suddenly be charged after companies get locked in, which is a shitty business practice that needs to be discouraged. Had Docker been transparent from the start that at some point in the future it will cost money, then that would have been fair since this would have been factored into business decisions. You can't just hand out free candy and after people swallow it, you tell them they now have to pay up or throw it up, since you can't expect such good candy to be free. That's basically a scam. Again, it's not about the money, it's about transparency.
- alar44 5y ago
  Hire a team and build your own fucking software then. That's the other option if building a business around someone else's free work isn't perfect enough for you.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    I didn't build any business one someone's free work. Your comment is out of place.
- thr0wawayf00 5y ago
  > Had Docker been transparent from the start that at some point in the future it will cost money, then that would have been fair since this would have been factored into business decisions. Docker never said the product would be free forever. You'd have an argument if they initially committed to keeping Docker Desktop free forever and reneged, but they didn't. It's kind of silly to expect a company to communicate in such vague terms. What company comes out with a statement saying "we're not sure when or what the details are, but someday, we're gonna start charging for Docker Desktop". Also, how does this work when a company decides to pivot? Maybe they initially intended never to charge for DD but their initial business strategy didn't work and they had to pivot. Is it wrong for a business to modify it's revenue streams? If you choose to incorporate a a piece of technology developed by a private company into your commercial project that is free today, you should expect to pay for it at some point in the future.
ljm 5y ago
I'm not going to challenge your point but Docker also found itself in the unusual position of being commoditised before it could figure out how to make money. It's not a novel thought, it's been discussed here plenty enough that their business model vanished under their feet, especially when kubernetes entered the fray. I can see why people aren't happy with how things have played out. Docker does need to earn its crust and pay its people, and this is strictly for the desktop UI, team space, and nascent collaboration feature with dev environments. It's a value-add over barebones docker but, and this is what is probably frustrating, it targets Windows and Mac users exclusively because it's not as easy to run docker without their software. Let's not also forget that they made optional upgrades a paid-for feature, while at the same time releasing software with showstopping bugs and regressions. Their response was literally to pay them money so you could deny an automatic upgrade. So my sympathy for Docker finding itself in this position is fairly limited, knowing that.
danudey 5y ago
If there's one rule of adding paid features, it's "Don't make previously-free features paid". They set the anchor price to "free" and then changed their minds later. Human psychology does not appreciate this and will resist and resent it, because we see it as someone taking away what we have. The solution is to add additional features and charge for them; they should have charged more for e.g. automatic kubernetes configurations and other more "businessey" features, but now it's too late and there's no value-adds that they haven't already added. In the end, it's not a complaint about Docker's "value-add" software; they're complaining about an increase in the price without an increase in the value. I'm not sure what Docker could do from this point on. Maybe I'm missing something, but they seem pretty doomed overall.
FooBarWidget 5y ago
This is not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of acceptance. Phrases like "it's a bait and switch" are just excuses around an entitled mindset.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

>Did you really, truly think that a product like Docker desktop would stay free forever? You're mistaken here. Nobody has issues paying for software, however people have issues with being baited into a free product to then suddenly be charged after companies get locked in, which is a shitty business practice that needs to be discouraged. Had Docker been transparent from the start that at some point in the future it will cost money, then that would have been fair since this would have been factored into business decisions. You can't just hand out free candy and after people swallow it, you tell them they now have to pay up or throw it up, since you can't expect such good candy to be free. That's basically a scam. Again, it's not about the money, it's about transparency.

alar44 5y ago
Hire a team and build your own fucking software then. That's the other option if building a business around someone else's free work isn't perfect enough for you.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  I didn't build any business one someone's free work. Your comment is out of place.
thr0wawayf00 5y ago
> Had Docker been transparent from the start that at some point in the future it will cost money, then that would have been fair since this would have been factored into business decisions. Docker never said the product would be free forever. You'd have an argument if they initially committed to keeping Docker Desktop free forever and reneged, but they didn't. It's kind of silly to expect a company to communicate in such vague terms. What company comes out with a statement saying "we're not sure when or what the details are, but someday, we're gonna start charging for Docker Desktop". Also, how does this work when a company decides to pivot? Maybe they initially intended never to charge for DD but their initial business strategy didn't work and they had to pivot. Is it wrong for a business to modify it's revenue streams? If you choose to incorporate a a piece of technology developed by a private company into your commercial project that is free today, you should expect to pay for it at some point in the future.

ljm 5y ago

I'm not going to challenge your point but Docker also found itself in the unusual position of being commoditised before it could figure out how to make money. It's not a novel thought, it's been discussed here plenty enough that their business model vanished under their feet, especially when kubernetes entered the fray. I can see why people aren't happy with how things have played out. Docker does need to earn its crust and pay its people, and this is strictly for the desktop UI, team space, and nascent collaboration feature with dev environments. It's a value-add over barebones docker but, and this is what is probably frustrating, it targets Windows and Mac users exclusively because it's not as easy to run docker without their software. Let's not also forget that they made optional upgrades a paid-for feature, while at the same time releasing software with showstopping bugs and regressions. Their response was literally to pay them money so you could deny an automatic upgrade. So my sympathy for Docker finding itself in this position is fairly limited, knowing that.

danudey 5y ago

If there's one rule of adding paid features, it's "Don't make previously-free features paid". They set the anchor price to "free" and then changed their minds later. Human psychology does not appreciate this and will resist and resent it, because we see it as someone taking away what we have. The solution is to add additional features and charge for them; they should have charged more for e.g. automatic kubernetes configurations and other more "businessey" features, but now it's too late and there's no value-adds that they haven't already added. In the end, it's not a complaint about Docker's "value-add" software; they're complaining about an increase in the price without an increase in the value. I'm not sure what Docker could do from this point on. Maybe I'm missing something, but they seem pretty doomed overall.

FooBarWidget 5y ago

This is not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of acceptance. Phrases like "it's a bait and switch" are just excuses around an entitled mindset.