I see lots of comments debating this technology choice or that one, as if the economic buyer actually cares. I dont think they do as much as the HN commentariat

I see lots of comments debating this technology choice or that one, as if the economic buyer actually cares. I dont think they do as much as the HN commentariat might think. All that really matters is whether Oxide's guesses about who'll buy and what they'll pay are right. Lets say that Oxide are guessing that their lead customers are telco and oil/gas: conservative industries, regulated, very strict about uptime and data sovereignty, etc. Oxide might spend 1 to 2 years running the gamut of all the people in those types of customers that can say no: ops, swcurity, network teams etc. But if Oxide can reach the finance team and get them to believe that a one time chunk of $$ is better than opex in the current interest rate environment, them it really doesnt matter what the tech stack is. (And bear in mind that financial models are f(t) so things might turn upside down as the economic picture changes over time) Assuming they have done this math, (surely a yes, or else VCs would not be lending them money) Oxide must need sufficent funding for a long sales cycle, and plausible enough bench strength to support customers who are going to hold them to ruthless SLAs and penalty clauses. All of that take serious coin up front, eg theres no outsourcing your 24x7 support to some kid reading from a script.