5 ms·

If anyone is mislead about whether Pydantic is Logfire or visa-versa, I'll eat my hat. Other than that, see my answer to the other comment.

nsteel 2y ago
For the record, I don't agree with the grandparent comment at all. None of this is "lame". It's a path to sustainable OSS and it's more obvious than ever that we need these pathways. But to be fair, the branding here is a little weird. If you were living under a rock and hadn't heard of pydantic then the website reads like pydantic is the company and logfire is a product of said company. That's fine. But then you've also got a product called pydantic. Or is it now called pydantic pydantic? I realise it's kind of an extension to pydantic but the AI focus doesn't make it feel that way and so I think that's where the GP is coming from. Sorry to nitpick, I hope it does well.
- esafak 2y ago
  This is just how you brand when you have one product. If he made up a new brand to subsume both products nobody would recognize it, so he wisely decided to recycle the existing brand; familiar, and liked. Google was originally just the search engine, without any qualifier. Now it's Google Search. In the same way, pydantic can become "Pydantic Validate" or something.
- scolvin 2y ago
  I think that's fair. It's a hard problem. We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused, or just called us "pydantic". I think Pydantic being the company name, and a standalone entity, and there being other products is fairly common. I think if Logfire is successful, it will end up just being known as "Logfire".
  - JimDabell 2y ago
    > We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused I don’t see how anybody would have been confused in that scenario? People start new companies with new names all the time. What you are actually doing is what is confusing. It’s a really weird branding choice to name an observability platform startup after a validation library.

nsteel 2y ago

For the record, I don't agree with the grandparent comment at all. None of this is "lame". It's a path to sustainable OSS and it's more obvious than ever that we need these pathways. But to be fair, the branding here is a little weird. If you were living under a rock and hadn't heard of pydantic then the website reads like pydantic is the company and logfire is a product of said company. That's fine. But then you've also got a product called pydantic. Or is it now called pydantic pydantic? I realise it's kind of an extension to pydantic but the AI focus doesn't make it feel that way and so I think that's where the GP is coming from. Sorry to nitpick, I hope it does well.

esafak 2y ago
This is just how you brand when you have one product. If he made up a new brand to subsume both products nobody would recognize it, so he wisely decided to recycle the existing brand; familiar, and liked. Google was originally just the search engine, without any qualifier. Now it's Google Search. In the same way, pydantic can become "Pydantic Validate" or something.
scolvin 2y ago
I think that's fair. It's a hard problem. We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused, or just called us "pydantic". I think Pydantic being the company name, and a standalone entity, and there being other products is fairly common. I think if Logfire is successful, it will end up just being known as "Logfire".
- JimDabell 2y ago
  > We could have called the company a completely new name and everyone would have been confused I don’t see how anybody would have been confused in that scenario? People start new companies with new names all the time. What you are actually doing is what is confusing. It’s a really weird branding choice to name an observability platform startup after a validation library.