6 ms·

> Unfortunately Docker the company appears to be dying Docker the company is crushing 2022-2023… record revenue and earnings

tyingq 4y ago
Of course, I can do a lot of record revenue and earnings selling five dollar bills for $4. I'm curious what a path to profit would look like...is this kind of squeeze the only way to get there?
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  that would make you negative one dollar of earnings per sale
  - tyingq 4y ago
    I agree given the usual definition of "net earnings", but private companies often represent earnings in creative ways that exclude obvious costs (hey Uber!).
  - windexh8er 4y ago
    OPs point is that revenue is easy, profit is not.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    unless you use dotcom accounting, in which case you can say that you lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume.
  - ehutch79 4y ago
    But 4$ of revenue! Do that 1000x and think of the growth!
- mfer 4y ago
  Docker Hub is a massive expense when you consider the data storage and egress. To do that for open source projects you have to wither (a) have a lot of income to cover such an expense, (b) a pile of VC funding to cover the expense, or (c) pile on the debt paying for it while you grow. (b) and (c) can only live on so long.
  - maccard 4y ago
    That's a self inflicted problem by docker hub squatting the root namespace, though.
    - mfer 4y ago
      Getting out of a self inflicted problem isn't so easy. They have spent a long time trying. For example, putting distribution in the CNCF, working with the OCI on specs (like the distribution spec), making it possible to use other registries while not breaking the workflows for existing folks, and even some cases of working with other registries (e.g., their MCR integration with Docker Hub that offloads some egress and storage). The root namespace problem was created by an early stage startup many years ago. I feel for the rough spot they are in.
      - maccard 4y ago
        It's a self inflicted problem they've doubled down on, though, and that self inflicted problem is also the reason for their success. If docker hub could be removed in a config, the value add of docker the company is significantly diminished. It's hard to feel sorry for a company who actively pursued lock-in, and didn't make any real attempts at avoiding it (you know what would help? A setting to not use docker hub, or to use a specific repo by default), and who have built an enormous company on a value add that is a monkey's paw, and they've known that all along. edit: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/10411 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/10411 this is the change that would _actually_ solve the problem of docker squatting the root namespace, and they've decided against it because it would make dockerfiles less portable (or really, it would neuter docker.io's home as the default place images live)
        nine_k 4y ago
        I fail to follow. If DockerHub is the part that actively burns money, why stick with it? If, say, Docker Desktop is the part that actively brings profits, why would it be afflicted if the users used a different image registry? Most companies, except the smallest ones, use their own registry / mirror anyway. Even better, the registry may continue to exist, but would (eventually) stop storing the images, and start storing .torrent files for the actual downloads. Seeing an image from the GitHub release page would be enough for most smaller projects (yes, BT supports HTTP mirrors directly).
- timcobb 4y ago
  You can’t have positive earnings like Docker if you sell 5 for 4
  - tyingq 4y ago
    I'm assuming creative calculations. Like Uber's idea of "earnings" changed when they went public.
    - mardifoufs 4y ago
      Based on what? How is that more likely than just them being able to finally generate revenue, considering they started focusing on that a few years ago? I don't get your comment at all
      - tyingq 4y ago
        Based on observation of other companies. Fluffing your earnings isn't rare for private companies looking for investors.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

tyingq 4y ago

Of course, I can do a lot of record revenue and earnings selling five dollar bills for $4. I'm curious what a path to profit would look like...is this kind of squeeze the only way to get there?

anonymoushn 4y ago
that would make you negative one dollar of earnings per sale
- tyingq 4y ago
  I agree given the usual definition of "net earnings", but private companies often represent earnings in creative ways that exclude obvious costs (hey Uber!).
- windexh8er 4y ago
  OPs point is that revenue is easy, profit is not.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  unless you use dotcom accounting, in which case you can say that you lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume.
- ehutch79 4y ago
  But 4$ of revenue! Do that 1000x and think of the growth!
mfer 4y ago
Docker Hub is a massive expense when you consider the data storage and egress. To do that for open source projects you have to wither (a) have a lot of income to cover such an expense, (b) a pile of VC funding to cover the expense, or (c) pile on the debt paying for it while you grow. (b) and (c) can only live on so long.
- maccard 4y ago
  That's a self inflicted problem by docker hub squatting the root namespace, though.
  - mfer 4y ago
    Getting out of a self inflicted problem isn't so easy. They have spent a long time trying. For example, putting distribution in the CNCF, working with the OCI on specs (like the distribution spec), making it possible to use other registries while not breaking the workflows for existing folks, and even some cases of working with other registries (e.g., their MCR integration with Docker Hub that offloads some egress and storage). The root namespace problem was created by an early stage startup many years ago. I feel for the rough spot they are in.
    - maccard 4y ago
      It's a self inflicted problem they've doubled down on, though, and that self inflicted problem is also the reason for their success. If docker hub could be removed in a config, the value add of docker the company is significantly diminished. It's hard to feel sorry for a company who actively pursued lock-in, and didn't make any real attempts at avoiding it (you know what would help? A setting to not use docker hub, or to use a specific repo by default), and who have built an enormous company on a value add that is a monkey's paw, and they've known that all along. edit: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/10411 https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/10411 this is the change that would _actually_ solve the problem of docker squatting the root namespace, and they've decided against it because it would make dockerfiles less portable (or really, it would neuter docker.io's home as the default place images live)
      - nine_k 4y ago
        I fail to follow. If DockerHub is the part that actively burns money, why stick with it? If, say, Docker Desktop is the part that actively brings profits, why would it be afflicted if the users used a different image registry? Most companies, except the smallest ones, use their own registry / mirror anyway. Even better, the registry may continue to exist, but would (eventually) stop storing the images, and start storing .torrent files for the actual downloads. Seeing an image from the GitHub release page would be enough for most smaller projects (yes, BT supports HTTP mirrors directly).
timcobb 4y ago
You can’t have positive earnings like Docker if you sell 5 for 4
- tyingq 4y ago
  I'm assuming creative calculations. Like Uber's idea of "earnings" changed when they went public.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    Based on what? How is that more likely than just them being able to finally generate revenue, considering they started focusing on that a few years ago? I don't get your comment at all
    - tyingq 4y ago
      Based on observation of other companies. Fluffing your earnings isn't rare for private companies looking for investors.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]