by zalmoxes on 12/14/18, 6:45 PM with 72 comments
by ksajadi on 12/14/18, 10:13 PM
- Don't use products from startups with unknown, dubious business models that are clearly subsidised by VC money until they "figure out how to monetize". (recently I saw a company saying "our business model is still firming up, whatever that means).
- Open source doesn't mean it's safe. Very few open source companies have solid business models and if the vast majority of the contrinbutors to the project come from the same company, then if they go down or get aquihired reviving the project and its community is not always guaranteed or simple. OSS projects need major adoption to be safe from this sort of damage.
- I sometimes even research the VCs backing the founders as well. I have seen companies founded by associates in VC firms leaving the firm to start a company because they know 1. they can get funding from their old pals in the firm, 2. they are going to be selling the company quickly to X because of some insider information about X's need or an internal project to find a company to buy in the space. Some founders are serial "build and flip"ers and I avoid using their products.
I feel much safer buying crtical services from a bootstrapped and profitable startup than a well funded one that doesn't have a clear business model.
by goobynight on 12/14/18, 7:46 PM
by nine_k on 12/14/18, 8:10 PM
In this regard, large established players have the benefit of the doubt when using a proprietary SaaS service: they are unlikely to fold, and if they sunset a product, they will likely give ample warning well ahead of time. (But not always even so: I see any new Google consumer product as a "while supplies last" sale.)
by marcinzm on 12/14/18, 7:23 PM
by JoshLedgard on 12/15/18, 1:38 AM
The timing was less than ideal for sure.
However they arranged a good support system with the folks at Fly.io. We’ve already transitioned new customers to it and they are helping to migrate existing sites and certs next week.
I think it’s a risk you just have to take, but we learned a lesson that for things that are dependancies for your business it’s good to have a couple of alternatives lined up or working side by side. :)
by bertjk on 12/14/18, 8:13 PM
by rostasteve on 12/14/18, 8:19 PM
by kodablah on 12/14/18, 7:31 PM
by williamstein on 12/14/18, 7:20 PM
by 0898 on 12/14/18, 9:53 PM
by closeparen on 12/14/18, 10:38 PM
The system can be expanded and serviced (without interruption) by installing and removing modules, but the backplane is forever.
A hot SaaS startup purporting to be your backplane is about as backwards as it gets. Smart companies are using cloud services in exactly the opposite way: as temporary, interchangeable capacity slotted into a backplane they own.
by sotojuan on 12/14/18, 7:57 PM
by mooreds on 12/15/18, 2:20 AM
by v1k0d3n on 12/15/18, 12:00 AM
considering that this is displayed on the CNCF interactive landscape page, does it mean that backplane will be quickly removed from the service proxy group, or does anyone think that CNCF is already aware? i reaalize it's not backed project or anything, but it clearly made it there somehow. considering how hot CNCF is right now, made even more apparent by the 8K+ sized crowd this week, i would imagine that the CNCF website brings a nice bit of traffic to these small companies.
it's too bad...backplane's vision seemed promising albeit lofty, and against some heavy odds (with some big players in the space).
by maybeiambatman on 12/14/18, 7:52 PM
by zalmoxes on 12/14/18, 8:17 PM
Second, Backplane really looked like great tech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43wFJBRTHG0