4 ms·

So, cloudification: lock the customer into a complex cloud dependent solution they can't easily migrate to some other commodity infrastructure provider.

taraindara 9mo ago
The easier/convenient a cloud makes it for a business to use, the more the industry will continue to trend towards lock in
- ghurtado 9mo ago
  I don't see the relation between those two
  - mikodin 9mo ago
    I essentially do a 1 click deployment for my personal site with Cloudflare. I don't want to deal with the cloud infra for my personal site. I could, I've done it in corporate, I've done it for my startup 2 years ago. But I'm rusty, I don't know what the latest people are using for configuration, etc. Because there is 1 click with CF or Vercel and I don't have to think about it—I don't. If they increase their price it likely wouldn't be enough friction for me dust off the rust. I think this is the relation. I'm not locked in, it's just HTML pages, but I am through my own habit energy, tech changing, and what I want to put effort into, which is not infra and serving my site.
mynameisvlad 9mo ago
What lock in? They explicitly said: > Staying open to all was a non-negotiable requirement for both us and for Cloudflare. They have deployment guides for practically every provider out there: https://docs.astro.build/en/guides/deploy/ https://docs.astro.build/en/guides/deploy/ And at the end of the day, most of the deployment is just deploying a static site... Which you can do practically anywhere.
- mplewis 9mo ago
  Yeah. For now.
  - bahmboo 9mo ago
    That's always been true. Perhaps even more so as Astro constantly faced an existential battle for a working business. Now they don't have to do that and Cloudflare makes their money on their infra business. Locking Astro up now or in the future gains them very little compared to how much they make with hosted upsell services. [edit: clarity]
  - mynameisvlad 9mo ago
    It's a static site builder. It creates a static site. HTML, CSS, and JS. That you can then upload literally anywhere. Once again, what lock in? There is literally nothing to lock in. Explain exactly how they are going to lock somebody in, moreso than the lazy "for now" which you seem to constantly repeat.
- thayne 9mo ago
  They can stay open source, but stop putting any effort into supporting deploying to cloudflare's competitors, including accepting PRs for such improvements. Or they could add features that only work if you deploy via cloudflare. I also take anything said in an acquisition announcement with a grain of salt. It is pretty common for companies to make changes they said they wouldn't a few years after an acquisition.
  - mynameisvlad 9mo ago
    Once again, it’s a static site builder. How, exactly, would they “stop supporting deploying to cloudflare’s competitors”? Be specific.
    - HumanOstrich 9mo ago
      The same ways Vercel makes it harder to deploy Next.js sites to competitors or for self hosting.
sofixa 9mo ago
No? It's still the same Astro that you can move to any other provider that supports it - and it's just Javascript, so pretty much everyone supports it.
- mplewis 9mo ago
  For now.

taraindara 9mo ago

The easier/convenient a cloud makes it for a business to use, the more the industry will continue to trend towards lock in

ghurtado 9mo ago
I don't see the relation between those two
- mikodin 9mo ago
  I essentially do a 1 click deployment for my personal site with Cloudflare. I don't want to deal with the cloud infra for my personal site. I could, I've done it in corporate, I've done it for my startup 2 years ago. But I'm rusty, I don't know what the latest people are using for configuration, etc. Because there is 1 click with CF or Vercel and I don't have to think about it—I don't. If they increase their price it likely wouldn't be enough friction for me dust off the rust. I think this is the relation. I'm not locked in, it's just HTML pages, but I am through my own habit energy, tech changing, and what I want to put effort into, which is not infra and serving my site.

mynameisvlad 9mo ago

What lock in? They explicitly said: > Staying open to all was a non-negotiable requirement for both us and for Cloudflare. They have deployment guides for practically every provider out there: https://docs.astro.build/en/guides/deploy/ https://docs.astro.build/en/guides/deploy/ And at the end of the day, most of the deployment is just deploying a static site... Which you can do practically anywhere.

mplewis 9mo ago
Yeah. For now.
- bahmboo 9mo ago
  That's always been true. Perhaps even more so as Astro constantly faced an existential battle for a working business. Now they don't have to do that and Cloudflare makes their money on their infra business. Locking Astro up now or in the future gains them very little compared to how much they make with hosted upsell services. [edit: clarity]
- mynameisvlad 9mo ago
  It's a static site builder. It creates a static site. HTML, CSS, and JS. That you can then upload literally anywhere. Once again, what lock in? There is literally nothing to lock in. Explain exactly how they are going to lock somebody in, moreso than the lazy "for now" which you seem to constantly repeat.
thayne 9mo ago
They can stay open source, but stop putting any effort into supporting deploying to cloudflare's competitors, including accepting PRs for such improvements. Or they could add features that only work if you deploy via cloudflare. I also take anything said in an acquisition announcement with a grain of salt. It is pretty common for companies to make changes they said they wouldn't a few years after an acquisition.
- mynameisvlad 9mo ago
  Once again, it’s a static site builder. How, exactly, would they “stop supporting deploying to cloudflare’s competitors”? Be specific.
  - HumanOstrich 9mo ago
    The same ways Vercel makes it harder to deploy Next.js sites to competitors or for self hosting.

sofixa 9mo ago

No? It's still the same Astro that you can move to any other provider that supports it - and it's just Javascript, so pretty much everyone supports it.

mplewis 9mo ago
For now.