Skip to main content

who is paying for whom?

Some months ago there was talk about the rich and the middle class. The question was who was paying the bulk of the taxes. Some talking head said that the top one half of one percent pays more than the rest of the country.

Bu that's not my point.

I like CoreOS. I like that they have found products and services that let them earn a living, put food on the table and send their kids to school. But where I get frustrated is that Quay.io costs $12/mo for 5 private repos. But if you're an enterprise customer it costs $1200/mo for 1000 repos. If you do the math it seems that the starter user is subsedising the enterprise user.

Consider this that the enterprise user likely has larger projects with many more servers and many more users. You cannot tell me that once the initial setup is performed that the enterprise user is benefiting from any amount of scale. Furthermore, bitbucket charges for each user in the private repo and githut charges for the number of repos. The reality is that as a startup users I have multiple projects and false starts but I only work on one project at a time.Whereas in an enterprise I might have many hundreds of programmers all smashing away at my repo at the same time.

As for the CoreOS' managed solution the minimum charge is $995/mo for 10 servers. As a startup I'd be lucky to have 10 servers. But right now everything is manual and I'm writing my own automation scripts. I'm not total embedded with CoreOS infrastructure. Their pricing is $100/mo per server; which extends to $1200/yr. In my case I have 3 CoreOS machines that I use for development. I need an HA solution because my hardware is unreliable. Each Server is an Intel Nuc and cosys $350. There is no way I'm going to pay 4x or a managed solution.

What CoreOS fails to realize is that the difference between my unmanaged servers are their managed solution is their dashboard. My systems still auto upgrade on schedule. Everything else I orchestrate manuyally or automate myself. By the time my code get's out of DEV I cannot demonstrate the power of the managed solution because it's not.

If I were in charge of CoreOS' sales and marketing....

  • $1/mo for a registered startup per service (managed CoreOS, Quay, Tectonic) paid in advance
  • FREE email support 9-5/m-f
  • Pay for phone support
  • FREE online documentation
  • At least 5 machine licenses locked to NIC or something like that (3 clustered etcd2, 2 workers)
Now for $36 per year you have my credit card, my money, and my hardware. Getting a little greedy I might want a second set of 5 (no more than five in a group) so that I can test operation in multiple datacenters or even production vs dev/staging.

In closing, if you've ever been the purchasing manager or decision maker for buying some new service you know how complicated it is to get someone to fork over money while in a beta or extended beta. If you start of with a program as I've outlined you have a better chance to convert these startups to enterprise.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

UPDATE 2017-10-30: With gratitude the CoreOS team has provided updated information on their pricing, however, I stand by my conclusion that the effective cost is lower when you deploy monster machines. The cost per node of my 1 CPU Intel NUC is the same as a 96 CPU server when you get beyond 10 nodes. I'll also reiterate that while my pricing notes are not currently…

eGalax touch on default Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS

I have not had success with the touch drivers as yet.  The touch works and evtest also seems to report events, however, I have noticed that the button click is not working and no matter what I do xinput refuses to configure the buttons correctly.  When I downgraded to ubuntu 10.04 LTS everything sort of worked... there must have been something in the kermel as 10.04 was in the 2.6 kernel and 4.04 is in the 3.x branch.

One thing ... all of the documentation pointed to the wrong website or one in Taiwanese. I was finally able to locate the drivers again: http://www.eeti.com.tw/drivers_Linux.html (it would have been nice if they provided the install instructions in text rather than PDF)
Please open the document "EETI_eGTouch_Programming_Guide" under the Guide directory, and follow the Guidline to install driver.
download the appropriate versionunzip the fileread the programming manual And from that I'm distilling to the following: execute the setup.sh answer all of the questio…

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).

TL;DR;

I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…