4 ms·

This is a 10-50 year company. You're not wrong, though, we are either building something big or we're building something that will fail. Our bet is that a devel

by mrkurt 4y ago

This is a 10-50 year company. You're not wrong, though, we are either building something big or we're building something that will fail. Our bet is that a developer first public cloud is important and needs to exist. Which means, there will be one of three outcomes: 1. We are correct, and manage to build the right thing. We'll get to work on this forever. 2. We are correct, but not the right group to build it. We fail. 3. We are incorrect, and the world doesn't need a public cloud for devs. We fail, and I become a carpenter. We have the same incentives as our investors. That doesn't mean it'll work. It does mean that we all believe that we're building a product for developers. We're pretty good at surviving, so far. And there are early signs that we're good at growing. There's reason to be hopeful. :)

KrishnaShripad 4y ago
Only issue stopping me from using Fly: bandwidth costs. I am spoiled by DigitalOcean's 1TB tier per droplet created (along with bandwidth pooling if you have more droplets).
- gsanderson 4y ago
  That's true but Fly's PaaS is perhaps more comparable to DigitalOcean's App Platform (its PaaS). For that, DO include 100GB for free while Fly include 160GB. Beyond that, DO charge $0.10/GB while Fly charge $0.02-$0.12/GB. Cheaper bandwidth for Fly's Machines (more comparable to droplets, as far as I can see) would be neat though.
  - KrishnaShripad 4y ago
    Yes I agree that Fly's PaaS is more comparable to DO's App Platform and definitely has better price model. However, I don't use DO's App Platform for exactly the same reasons as why I don't use Fly's PaaS. I like services which provide bandwidth for cheap (or even free — Cloudflare Images and Cloudflare R2 comes to mind). Ideally, I want to be charged only for features I use and not for egress which I have no control over. But I know that is not feasible from business point of view (unless you are Cloudflare).
    - tptacek 4y ago
      It's OK that we're not a good fit for every user; in fact, you should be suspicious of providers that claim otherwise.
morelisp 4y ago
I adore fly.io and hope for 1), but > We have the same incentives as our investors. this is wrong, even if today it looks right because the different incentives result in the same concrete things. You have a company; your goal is to make the company succeed. Investors have a portfolio; their goal is to make the portfolio succeed. Your company succeeding is only one aspect of their portfolio succeeding, and one whose importance and externalities can change drastically for reasons outside your control.
- mrkurt 4y ago
  This is all true. But my goal is to make the portfolio succeed.
sangnoir 4y ago
I've modified the first option 1.We are correct, and manage to build the right thing [developer first cloud]. We'll get to work on this *until we exhaust that market and are forced to grow beyond it"
- mrkurt 4y ago
  That's a pretty big market. Heroku got to ~$500mm of revenue while they funneled their most valuable customers to AWS. Keeping those customers around (by, say, giving them lower level primitives) would have 10x'ed that, I bet.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    That's a great point. I hope it's big enough for you to not reach its boundaries, because transitioning to a larger market will fundamentally alter the nature of the org. Speaking as customer of organizations that made the transition, and as someone who lived through one on the inside
capableweb 4y ago
> 1. We are correct, and manage to build the right thing. We'll get to work on this forever. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, I apologize if that's the case. But I fail to see how the company could ever work on "the right thing" "forever" since there is outside investment in the company. Do these investor not want a return on their investment at one point? If it's in 1 year or 10, eventually they are gonna want you to either go public, or get bought by another company, both of which makes the mission goal change from "the right thing" to "the profitable thing" at that moment. But again, maybe I'm just overly pessimistic based on bad experiences with VC funded companies.
- mrkurt 4y ago
  Oh when I say "the right thing", it includes actually making money. We're not just building a dev focused cloud because it's fun (it is fun!). We think it's a good business with a very large market. An IPO would be fine!
  - mbesto 4y ago
    > An IPO would be fine! And now instead of venture capitalists you have Wall Street to answer to.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      (Taking notes) If we IPO, we lose this message board argument. Got it!
      - mbesto 4y ago
        Your snarky response actually proves my point. The responses from the individuals (including the CEO) are meaningless without action. The only action (beyond writing words) the company has undertaken is to take money from venture capitalists.

by mrkurt 4y ago

KrishnaShripad 4y ago

Only issue stopping me from using Fly: bandwidth costs. I am spoiled by DigitalOcean's 1TB tier per droplet created (along with bandwidth pooling if you have more droplets).

gsanderson 4y ago
That's true but Fly's PaaS is perhaps more comparable to DigitalOcean's App Platform (its PaaS). For that, DO include 100GB for free while Fly include 160GB. Beyond that, DO charge $0.10/GB while Fly charge $0.02-$0.12/GB. Cheaper bandwidth for Fly's Machines (more comparable to droplets, as far as I can see) would be neat though.
- KrishnaShripad 4y ago
  Yes I agree that Fly's PaaS is more comparable to DO's App Platform and definitely has better price model. However, I don't use DO's App Platform for exactly the same reasons as why I don't use Fly's PaaS. I like services which provide bandwidth for cheap (or even free — Cloudflare Images and Cloudflare R2 comes to mind). Ideally, I want to be charged only for features I use and not for egress which I have no control over. But I know that is not feasible from business point of view (unless you are Cloudflare).
  - tptacek 4y ago
    It's OK that we're not a good fit for every user; in fact, you should be suspicious of providers that claim otherwise.

morelisp 4y ago

I adore fly.io and hope for 1), but > We have the same incentives as our investors. this is wrong, even if today it looks right because the different incentives result in the same concrete things. You have a company; your goal is to make the company succeed. Investors have a portfolio; their goal is to make the portfolio succeed. Your company succeeding is only one aspect of their portfolio succeeding, and one whose importance and externalities can change drastically for reasons outside your control.

mrkurt 4y ago
This is all true. But my goal is to make the portfolio succeed.

sangnoir 4y ago

I've modified the first option 1.We are correct, and manage to build the right thing [developer first cloud]. We'll get to work on this *until we exhaust that market and are forced to grow beyond it"

mrkurt 4y ago
That's a pretty big market. Heroku got to ~$500mm of revenue while they funneled their most valuable customers to AWS. Keeping those customers around (by, say, giving them lower level primitives) would have 10x'ed that, I bet.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  That's a great point. I hope it's big enough for you to not reach its boundaries, because transitioning to a larger market will fundamentally alter the nature of the org. Speaking as customer of organizations that made the transition, and as someone who lived through one on the inside

capableweb 4y ago

> 1. We are correct, and manage to build the right thing. We'll get to work on this forever. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, I apologize if that's the case. But I fail to see how the company could ever work on "the right thing" "forever" since there is outside investment in the company. Do these investor not want a return on their investment at one point? If it's in 1 year or 10, eventually they are gonna want you to either go public, or get bought by another company, both of which makes the mission goal change from "the right thing" to "the profitable thing" at that moment. But again, maybe I'm just overly pessimistic based on bad experiences with VC funded companies.

mrkurt 4y ago
Oh when I say "the right thing", it includes actually making money. We're not just building a dev focused cloud because it's fun (it is fun!). We think it's a good business with a very large market. An IPO would be fine!
- mbesto 4y ago
  > An IPO would be fine! And now instead of venture capitalists you have Wall Street to answer to.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    (Taking notes) If we IPO, we lose this message board argument. Got it!
    - mbesto 4y ago
      Your snarky response actually proves my point. The responses from the individuals (including the CEO) are meaningless without action. The only action (beyond writing words) the company has undertaken is to take money from venture capitalists.