Hacker News Reader

Comment by mailshanx | Hacker News Reader

Congratulations, I read your comments on the Google Auto ML thread a few days ago with great interest.

If Auto ML has commercial value, why are you open-sourcing it?

I think it would be a bad idea to open-source your solution, unless you plan on competing on services, rather than an Auto ML product.

View on HN

Thank you! I believe AutoML has huge value and can be a new standard in ML. I would like to see the adoption of AutoML - that's why I'm open sourcing it. Otherwise, I would need a lot of money for marketing and sales to make it popular.

Before open sourcing I was looking at Metabase and Redash solutions, and I was very impressed with their business model - I would like to achieve something similar. The goal is to be ramen profitable.

Why would people pay you if it's already opensourced? Do you envision a redhat kind of support system?

I will offer hosted paid version (SaaS offer similar to redash) and I will offer paid white labeled embedded machine learning platform (similar to metabase). Plus paid support, paid feature requests, ML consulting. Does it make sense?

Look at DataRobot - they are massively successful at this point, and I think the key is that they didn't release the source.

Open sourcing the core solution hugely dilutes your value proposition - I hope that you will reconsider your decision.

DataRobot has over 220M in total funding. They have resources for sales. Though, I will think about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com