3 ms·

Maintaining docker builds isn’t that huge of a burden (and likely very useful for them too), and they’re delegating hosting to a third party… I don’t get what t

Maintaining docker builds isn’t that huge of a burden (and likely very useful for them too), and they’re delegating hosting to a third party… I don’t get what they’re trying to achieve here.

ComputerGuru 1y ago
Money
- snihalani 1y ago
  this. They want to show more paid subscribers to VCs and enabling open source is eating their lunch
vbezhenar 1y ago
They're trying to force some free users to pay them for binary builds.
- reconnecting 1y ago
  Are they? I even checked the pricing page, and there is no mention of any builds as paid features.
  - vbezhenar 1y ago
    https://www.min.io/download?platform=docker https://www.min.io/download?platform=docker https://docs.min.io/enterprise/aistor-object-store/installation/container/install/ https://docs.min.io/enterprise/aistor-object-store/installat... podman pull quay.io/minio/aistor/minio:latest podman run minio/aistor/minio --version So I suppose those are official binaries which require license to use.
    - reconnecting 1y ago
      I mean, what's the difference in pricing between AGPL and a commercial license? €50k/year? €100k/year? Do you think Docker binaries are something that could hypothetically drive conversion from AGPL users to commercial licenses?
      - wmf 1y ago
        There's definitely an air of desperation here. It's not going to work but they have to try it anyway.
        reconnecting 1y ago
        I am really interested in this case, as I cannot imagine any commercial benefit from this decision. Free users will not pay tens/hundreds of thousands for just binary files. Obviously this will slow down the adoption of the AGPL version, against which the growth of the paid version potentially will look better in Excel reports for VCs, but something tells me that this is unlikely to be the real reason.
        busterarm 1y ago
        > Free users will not pay tens/hundreds of thousands for just binary files. Sad to say but this isn't true. This is a failure to understand the pricing model of this kind of enterprise software. What happens is the free version is used in some product somewhere. Then product's company gets acquired by HugeBigCo. Product company brain drain happens and HugeBigCo looks at poorly understood free software dependency as a liability. It's cheaper/better-on-the-balance-sheet to pay for a license and a support contract than to move off of that dependency or hire competent people to look after it...For a few years, anyway -- until that business unit is worth investing resources in. That's how a company like Neo4j can charge a half-million bucks a year for one production cluster and get HugeBigCo as label that they can use to try to convince other companies that this pricing is even remotely reasonable. Anything enterprise data-storage SaaS related is looking to charge at least a quarter-million a year.
        1y ago

ComputerGuru 1y ago

Money

snihalani 1y ago
this. They want to show more paid subscribers to VCs and enabling open source is eating their lunch

vbezhenar 1y ago

They're trying to force some free users to pay them for binary builds.

reconnecting 1y ago
Are they? I even checked the pricing page, and there is no mention of any builds as paid features.
- vbezhenar 1y ago
  https://www.min.io/download?platform=docker https://www.min.io/download?platform=docker https://docs.min.io/enterprise/aistor-object-store/installation/container/install/ https://docs.min.io/enterprise/aistor-object-store/installat... podman pull quay.io/minio/aistor/minio:latest podman run minio/aistor/minio --version So I suppose those are official binaries which require license to use.
  - reconnecting 1y ago
    I mean, what's the difference in pricing between AGPL and a commercial license? €50k/year? €100k/year? Do you think Docker binaries are something that could hypothetically drive conversion from AGPL users to commercial licenses?
    - wmf 1y ago
      There's definitely an air of desperation here. It's not going to work but they have to try it anyway.
      - reconnecting 1y ago
        I am really interested in this case, as I cannot imagine any commercial benefit from this decision. Free users will not pay tens/hundreds of thousands for just binary files. Obviously this will slow down the adoption of the AGPL version, against which the growth of the paid version potentially will look better in Excel reports for VCs, but something tells me that this is unlikely to be the real reason.
        busterarm 1y ago
        > Free users will not pay tens/hundreds of thousands for just binary files. Sad to say but this isn't true. This is a failure to understand the pricing model of this kind of enterprise software. What happens is the free version is used in some product somewhere. Then product's company gets acquired by HugeBigCo. Product company brain drain happens and HugeBigCo looks at poorly understood free software dependency as a liability. It's cheaper/better-on-the-balance-sheet to pay for a license and a support contract than to move off of that dependency or hire competent people to look after it...For a few years, anyway -- until that business unit is worth investing resources in. That's how a company like Neo4j can charge a half-million bucks a year for one production cluster and get HugeBigCo as label that they can use to try to convince other companies that this pricing is even remotely reasonable. Anything enterprise data-storage SaaS related is looking to charge at least a quarter-million a year.
        1y ago