Also how many IAC vendors are there really? Hashicorp, Pulumi and AWS? What are the others?
As I recall before cloud era infrastructure on any kind scale was still code, its just that the code was maintaining thousands of lines of Kickstart of FAI configs and associated preinstall and postinstall shell scripts. I don't remember that being any more pleasant to maintain.
Companies with ample cash will be fine, of course, but all these spurious startups with egregious VC funding, overpaid Pulumi and Kubernetes and <insert all the other unnecessary tech> engineers will soon be out of work and unable to find similar employment comp.
People who get shit done and can run lean profit driven businesses will continue to survive just fine.
> Low interest rates in 1998–99 facilitated an increase in start-up companies
> In 2000, the dot-com bubble burst, and many dot-com startups went out of business after burning through their venture capital and failing to become profitable.
Sound familiar? It should, because history rhymes.
People have seemingly predicted 20 of the last 1 tech bubbles. The "Dot Com Bust 2.0" headline is practically a meme at this point. I feel like it's something lazy journalists do on slow news days. Here's a brief sampling from the last 8 years.
From 2014 - "In Some Ways, It’s Looking Like 1999 in the Stock Market"[1]
From 2016 - "This Tech Bubble Is Bursting"[2]
From 2018 - "Silicon Valley tech bubble is larger than it was in 2000, and the end is coming" [3]
From 2020 - "6 Reasons This Tech Bubble Is Bursting"[4]
Ad infinitum.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/business/in-some-ways-its...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-tech-bubble-is-bursting-14...
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/tech-bubble-is-larger-than-i...
[4] https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/10/6-reasons-this-tec...
Companies relying on crazy market valuations will pop just like they always did. Companies with sufficient revenue OR cash should continue.
Kubernetes is fine and it's not _unnecessary_. It's absolutely crucial to many companies and having this tech available has solved many problems. It creates other problems, of course.
People like to complain about Kubernetes, but my viewpoint is that microservices is the unnecessary tech here. Sure, some stacks may benefit, but I'm willing to wager that most companies are not doing microservices, they are actually creating distributed monoliths just to be able to ship their org chart. And, in the process, adding all sorts of technologies that shouldn't be necessary.
It’s not just that of course. It’s the entire web toolchain and build pipelines, SPAs, react, node/npm, that entire community reinventing “SSR” and caching.
It’s the “modern data platform” movement where people stop using databases and slap everything into python and 10 layers of ETL and job queues and dags all so it loads into a cloud data platform with a separation of storage and compute at the end.
It’s all a bunch of crap is my issue and why I call it a bubble. Nobody is solving actual business problems. They’re just creating tooling and then new companies to make that tooling less insufferable.
As one tiny example, how much of say Datadog’s revenue is coming from overfunded VC companies who have never considered cost or utility. Those logs should have been sent to /dev/null in the first place is usually the answer.
> Nobody is solving actual business problems.
I think most people are solving business problems and that you're (perhaps justifiably) jaded on the tech side of it.
The entire CNCF doesn't solve a single business problem. And I say this while working with K8s since 2016. Not once has a customer thanked me for my tech stack.
You and the parent are probably talking about different people.
Hmm, I disagree with that assertion. Yes, a customer isn't going to thank you for making an investment in depending on open standards. But it's often a worthy investment because it lets you hold other vendors you depend on accountable. I've seen this firsthand with OpenTelemetry and the Observability space, where it's not uncommon for vendors to lock you in and get weird and shitty with you. I'd love to live in a world where that didn't happen, but in this case I think there's a very real business problem being solved.
Not sure about Pulumi, looks like they only have a series B 1.5 years ago. Either they have a very short runway at this point or found some real ARR.
What OP is getting at is that IAC is often not /sold/ this way, it's sold as way to make managing complex systems simpler, in the sense that someone with less expertise can use it effectively, because marketers and salespeople love promising something that will remove all that pesky setup work and let you start on whatever it is you actually want to do. This can be true for some tools (e.g. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about compiler internals or assembly, but my compiled code still does what I wrote it to do), but not necessarily all.
Managing an AWS environment is an inherently complex task, and IAC tools can't reduce that complexity without being prescriptive. We may in the distant future get to the point where prescriptive configuration is fine (I trust that my compiler will make better assembly optimization decisions than I ever will), but we're not there now. What we have now addresses UX issues with using GUIs for these tasks.