If anything I'm surprised that their valuation isn't higher.
I've been using Docker since early 2014 and they haven't gotten a dime from me. If you count the storage and bandwidth on the public registry I've cost them money.
Where does the money go.
What you described is a services/support company, something Red Hat has worked really really hard not to be over the years (to debatable degree of success). Being their for support vs OSS is not how you get great margins.
Anyway, at this level of the stack in prod settings brand won't take you that far.
That's simply not true. Having a support team they can call is, rightly or wrongly, a large part of the reason some companies consider buying Docker Enterprise Edition at all.
Exactly. Build your docker image with the free open source tools then push it onto Azure, for example. How does Docker the company see any revenue here? Or if you are running on-prem with DC/OS in a private cloud. I don't know anyone using Docker's own cloud, and why would you? They need to sell either services or an "Enterprise" version that is better than what you can do without them. I think containers are definitely the future, but I also see containers as being just a commodity, no more exciting that Makefiles and RPM are now. The money will be in running them, and Azure, AWS et al will have that stitched up.
Also, a lot of the value of Github is social. You can only get that (after a certain point) by paying Github money.
By contrast, you can get 100% of the value of the Docker community without paying a cent to Docker, Inc.
Wrong. The built-in Docker Swarm has currently the easiest UI for container orchestration (there is still stuff which could be done better though but still). This paired with sensible defaults and batteries included, such as a load balancer make Docker the clear winner and apparantly nobody has been able to replicate the UX. I know k8s has a bigger market share but is also way more complex.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Afraid that your k8s know-how will drop in market value? Please reply with valid counter arguments instead of this maddening silent downvoting. If I was wrong let me know where and why.
Kubernetes is the magic sauce, not Docker.
Is docker perfect? no. Swarm has been an absolute disaster. API stability has been dramatically undervalued. There is room for containers to grow, and their power is nowhere near tapped out.
There still a lot of room for improvement on the containerization space, and docker is going to drive that, whether the kubernetes crowd likes that or not.
Kubernetes is amazing and gives us a real chance to have an operating system for the data center.
Kubernetes itself, despite years of investing is still ridiculously difficult to install. It still has an adoption that’s at least two orders of magnitude below baseline docker. The learning curve is still way higher than it should be.
Frankly I hope that all involved get their heads out of their asses and build something great rather then continue to muscle in on each other. There is no reason for this pissing match given that it’s the combination of borg and Docker that makes solutions deployed on top of kubernetes amazing.
Honest answer: It's rude to open with the one-word sentence "Wrong." You compounded it by implying that anyone downvoting is doing so in bad faith. Neither is a good look. The rest of your comment was fine.
> Please reply with valid counter arguments
Sure! So, Kubernetes is Google's attempt to make real, full-strength Google-ish infrastructure "as simple as possible, but no simpler". This kind of infrastructure is really hard, so "as simple as possible" is still quite complicated. This makes k8s a pain in the ass to understand and use.
Docker swarm comes from the opposite end - it's dead simple to use, and seems to be aiming for the 80% use case. After all, most companies are not Google, and can work with a less complicated solution that offers a "Just Push Go" experience. The downside is that it's less flexible and less robust. (I also get the distinct sense that the engineering was rushed. But that can be fixed if it stays popular for long enough - eg I hear MySQL is decent these days.)
The potential problem, as kuschku is pointing out, is that the bigger, more Enterprise-y and more lucrative customers become, the more likely they are to want the power and robustness of Kubernetes. This presents an existential threat to Docker Inc. They could end up fully commoditised, building a vital platform that provides tons of value, but which they can't charge for because all the big support contracts go to Kubernetes Managed Services Providers or whatever.