Hacker News Reader

Generally, this pattern has a name: bait and switch. I'm not saying that the company shouldn't make money, but I'm saying that it's widely recognized that providing something free and changing your mind later will inevitably degrade your users' trust in you. So don't be surprised when there's backlash and migration away from your services and tools if you decide to try to turn formerly free services and tools into paid versions with no additional incentive.

I know that HN loves calling everything a bait and switch, but this is not that. It’s a useful product - despite so many here that apparently use it but insist that it’s useless. Docker wants to grow their revenue and is going to start charging companies (who also presumably have some revenue) a fee for the product.

Absolutely normal business strategy.

I haven't said it's useless, and I don't think I've seen anyone's comments calling it useless. But the reality is, what docker does is not complicated. It was not replaced because there wasn't a real reason to. If you built a docker competitor that was also free but did exactly the same things, you'd have been asked "why?"

Now, the answer to that question exists. It's no longer free, which was the primary reason anyone just kept using it when (especially today) it doesn't offer much over alternatives.

Why is the goalpost “Docker” suddenly? That’s still fully free. This whole thread is about the convenient GUI, which is what everyone is complaining about lacking features or purpose.

Docker Desktop, I mean. I personally haven't ever used the GUI except to deal with their new autoupdate prompts. I, and many others, just need something to set up the VM and orchestrate things so that `docker` in my terminal does as expected when I'm using my work-issued Mac. On Linux this is a non-issue, yes.

It’s not “wrong”, but it’s annoying. They’re asking me to invest into their platform, but they’re also constantly increasing the price and/or making it more restrictive. This makes it hard for me to understand the long term cost of a commitment.

They’re now charging for the GUI they have developed, while the core of Docker is still free. Someone has to fund continued development, asking companies for a fee feels quite logical.

Seems to me that a value-add tool makes sense to commercialize. It doesn’t provide a large array of features yet, but this funding will help with that.

If you don’t find it useful enough for the fee, clearly you’re better off with CLI or alternative GUIs.

What features? Are people really asking for more features for Docker Desktop?

I know for me I install it, let it do its setup, and then I do everything from the Docker CLI as if I was on a linux machine.

It has k8s built in if you want to add that also.

We are not talking about a tool here that needs a ton of functionality. But they have become (seemingly at least) the standard tool to have a more consistent Docker setup on Mac or Windows compared to where it will eventually be deployed (Linux). Once you have it setup you should be using the CLI.

I feel like they are severely overestimating the software, I am anticipating several open source alternatives to quickly become available since it wouldn't (or shouldn't) change your workflow at all to put in another alternative.

Edit: TBH I often forget docker desktop is sitting there until it starts asking me to update... so this is a perfect opportunity to replace it.

You’re the perfect out of market example. Use other tools, and be content.

Of course, they’re not charging individuals, so I’m not sure why you’re complaining.

Docker is a valuable product only because of the CLI, not for the GUI. To be honest, no one wants their GUI. It's unfortunate Docker as a company only promotes the Docker Desktop (with GUI) for Mac and Windows.

Because I work at a company that I would have to justify the subscription too?

But you’re not using it? You stated that you don’t even know it was running - clearly you don’t even need a GUI, just CLI.

No, I said I forget it is running.

That is not because I am not using it, but I am indirectly using it by working with the Docker CLI.

What it does is very valuable, but it is a perfect candidate to be replaced by an open source alternative as long as I can continue to use the Docker CLI.

Who’s going to fund your open source alternative? Definitely not you, since Docker asking companies to pay a fee is somehow preposterous.

One important question to ask yourself is, what happens next time they want more money? Just how much of a hostage are you willing to be?

This can be said of literally any paid service. It’s not much of an argument, except on these kinds of HN threads.

A reasonable point.

It is, however, much easier to say it of a service that has a history of flailing around about how and what they want money for than one that has a consistent history of not being surprising.

The more nuanced argument is that the reaction to Docker’s change to charging for the Desktop version is less about the money and more about the stability of the company itself. Surprising your customer base by charging for a previously free product shows that the financials of the company aren’t very stable. This, in turn, is a red flag to rely too heavily on this particular product. Which can then start to cause a downward spiral, if not managed correctly.

But honestly, we already knew this about Docker. They’ve always had issues trying to figure out their business plan.

Unfortunately, despite HN’s insistence that FOSS is sustainable - they have realized the truth, as seen by replies with views similar to yours, that Devs are too stingy to pay and support Dev tools.

Developer tools have always been a tough business to be in. On one hand, you have tools that people love to use that pay the bills. I’m thinking about tools like IntelliJ. But for each of these, there is an Eclipse project that is right there trying to keep pace. And many companies choose Eclipse because it’s free, but others choose IntelliJ because of the quality. I use Eclipse for Kava projects because it’s “good enough” and when I started programming Java, paying for IntelliJ wasn’t something I could afford.

On the other hand, we’re developers… so many of us like building our own tools. Why are there so many options for text editors? Depending on the type of tool, it might just be easier/fun to build your own tool.

It is possible to make money in FOSS, but you really have to get the business plan right from the beginning. It’s a hard business to be in.

If you haven’t read it, “Dreaming in Code” by Scott Rosenberg is a great story about just how hard it is to make a successful FOSS project, even for experienced teams. It details all of the ups and downs of the Chandler project from the early 2000’s.

So your point is that you (personally) don’t like their business model, and don’t like funding the company that created the free Docker software and ecosystem that you use all the time?

"Depends".

IntelliJ and Visual Studio are doing perfectly well.

Maybe not every tiny little tool should be a subscription.

(yes, docker is a tiny tool compared to, say, linux, or kubernetes)

It’s good for the world that random HNers don’t get to decide what other people/companies should do to please them.

It's not wrong, and it's also not wrong of any previous user to decide to move to a free alternative. Let the free market decide whether they are charging a fair price for the value they provide or if there is more value in other options. For as smart as many people are on HN, I've rarely come across a more clueless bunch of folks as far as basic economics

When comments condescendingly say “free market”, it’s a red flag that you’re going to read a “wise” rant.