
MongoDB Raises $150 Million at $1.2 Billion Valuation - sethbannon
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/mongodb-becomes-king-of-nyc-startups-with-1-2-billion-valuation.html
======
venus
Well let me be the first to say that I think that is an absolutely fucking
crazy valuation and that MongoDB are either nuts or disingenuous for signing
up for it.

I would be astounded - _astounded_ \- if MongoDB generate even a tenth of
that, just in revenue, ever.

One point two billion dollars. You have got to be kidding me. You have got to
be fucking kidding me.

~~~
pc
I hate to be That Guy, but I think this demands a bit more rigor. $1.2B is
certainly a big number, but let's unpack what it means. Do you think it's
impossible that MongoDB gets to $100M of net income? For a company that sells
to the enterprise and whose product has significant adoption, that definitely
doesn't sound implausible to me.

Given their financials and growth figures, how would _you_ value MongoDB?

~~~
venus
I don't know. I haven't seen these financials. But it's a frigging database,
and not a particularly good one. A billion dollars!?

Look, I'm not claiming to be omniscient. I'm sure they're smart people. But
would you buy stock in MongoDB at a 1.2b valuation? Would you?

As for me - Absolutely not.

~~~
pc
> _I don 't know. I haven't seen these financials. But it's a frigging
> database, and not a particularly good one. A billion dollars!?_

Salesforce is a frigging CRM tool; SAP is a frigging ERP system; Oracle is a
frigging database. And not particularly good ones at that, in the estimation
of many of their users. Their market caps are $30 billion, $90 billion, and
$150 billion, respectively.

I'm disappointed that yours is the top-voted comment. We can do better than
this.

~~~
Confusion
Back then, when they were the age 10gen/MongoDB is now, nobody valued those
companies at (the appropriately adjusted equivalent of) 1.2 billion, because
there was no clue _they_ would be the winners.

All investors then were just overly cautious? Or perhaps there are now others
ways to make money off of a company, not tied to the companies actual success
and the value it adds to the economy?

~~~
pc
> _Back then, when they were the age 10gen /MongoDB is now, nobody valued
> those companies at (the appropriately adjusted equivalent of) 1.2 billion,
> because there was no clue they would be the winners._

Actually, MongoDB (formerly 10gen) is 6 years old. After 6 years, Salesforce's
market cap was around $3 billion. (They IPO'd after 5 years.)

~~~
hackula1
Ok, but Salesforce was also the fastest company to ever reach a billion
dollars. They are definitely an outlier.

------
rpedela
Is MongoDB going to fix their scalability, performance, JOIN, and data type
support problems with the money? Seems like a bad investment to me since a lot
of developers are starting to move away from it because of those problems and
others.

~~~
omni
Can you point me to an article that explains why you would want JOINs in a
NoSQL database to begin with? I thought the entire point was to denormalize
your data. I keep seeing this point brought up, but it reads to me like a
misguided complaint stemming from misunderstanding how to apply the tech.

~~~
troyk
The rethinkdb guys think it's important and have joins in their nosql product.
Everytime I try nosql first thing I miss is the ability to query as the need
arises without a refactor.

~~~
danudey
I've always just abstracted the DB away with objects and lazy-load any
'subqueries' that I might want to have/use/get (or autoload them if
necessary).

------
untog
$1.2bn seems utterly mad to me, but kudos to them for getting it.

~~~
hrjet
MySQL was bought in cash by Sun for $1 billion. Of course, Sun collapsed after
that, so perhaps you are right about the madness.

~~~
X4
Imagine what SUN could have built, if they had $1 billion in cash to spent on
a Database. Stupid managers wouldn't let them, but they spent $1 billion on a
hyped DB with questionable quality.

~~~
mbreese
I always thought of the MySQL purchase as a last desperate attempt to get
their geek mojo back. Not something that they could have done with an in house
solution (quickly).

It still didn't work, but I don't think they were _just_ trying to buy a
database.

------
tolitius
Ok. Time to change how the hype and good marketing drive mediocre products,
with average people behind it, to silly valuations.

So here it comes. It is only a VALUE if WE say it is. So here is what I say.

I value

    
    
        * Redis      @ $4.5B
        * Datomic    @ $4.5B
        * Riak       @ $3.2B
        * Hazelcast  @ $3.0B
        * HBase      @ $2.5B
        * Spanner    @ $2.1B
        * Neo4j      @ $2.0B
        * MongoDB    @ N/A
    

Congratulations to MongoDB sales and marketing team (really!). It is a tough
job to sell a trojan horse to masses.

~~~
threeseed
Look clearly you have zero understanding of how enterprises work. And given
you have added Hazelcast which is a distributed in-memory solution in there
shows you have a poor understanding of technology as well.

It is all about support. Big companies have operations teams who manage
infrastructure and deployments. They aren't experts in databases and so want
to be able to ring someone who can help them when the times get tough. 10gen
understands this and have a great support story to talk about hence their
popularity. Most OSS don't.

~~~
tolitius
a simple fact that you get defensive and personal reveals that you are not
happy with your confidence level. but that's ok, as you get more mature, and
acquire a certain perception depth (and I wish you do), you'll prefer being
constructive vs. angry.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Hazelcast solves similar problem that all
of the valuations in the list: "storing and retrieving data". By the way,
"file system" does it too (let's valuate it as well @ $3.6B).

As far as "enterprise support" in case of Mongo, it's like running a political
campaign: nobody really knows "who" is inside, until "he" gets elected, and
when "he" does, the "support" needs to make sure reality stays hidden, by
white (and not so white) lies. And yes, MongoDB is great at "support", most
OSS aren't.

------
junto
Cool, time to make MongoDb web scale! :-)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs)

~~~
kailuowang
That video is a bit unfair. I went to the MongoDB conference in NYC this year.
None of the 10gen engineers made such silver bullet claims. They strengthened
again and again that MongoDB is with significant limitations and scaling it
requires a lot of effort and creativity from the client developer side.

That being said, I do wish they can use this investment to do more feature
development than marketing.

~~~
untog
That video is three years old, though.

~~~
ameoba
...but you can be sure that it's going to be posted every time MongoDB comes
up. Somehow, people will vote it up as if it's still funny or adds something
to the discussion.

------
tcgv
I have been using MongoDB every once in a while and I think it is great. The
C# driver has linq support which increases productivity to the roof. However,
the feature I miss the most while using MongoDB is multi document transaction
support. Their site provides a workaround[1] that from my point of view is not
worth implementing. Instead I prefer to switch back to traditional SQL
databases in those situations.

[1] [http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/tutorial/perform-two-phase-
co...](http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/tutorial/perform-two-phase-commits/)

~~~
nlavezzo
You're not alone in this interest - we hear that as a pain point a lot. If
you're really interested in this, keep an eye on this page:

[https://foundationdb.com/layers](https://foundationdb.com/layers)

:)

------
sethbannon
This is more great news for the NYC startup ecosystem.

~~~
ConAntonakos
I wholeheartedly agree. Kudos to MongoDB, Inc. It's a great NoSQL database
that's gaining traction.

------
alexholehouse
Slightly off topic, but at what point does "big data" just become data?

According to wikipedia (which is in line with how I think about big data) _"
Big data is the term for a collection of data sets so large and complex that
it becomes difficult to process using on-hand database management tools or
traditional data processing applications. "_

However, as "big data" becomes more mainstream and more tools/services exist
to accommodate data at the peta/exobyte scale does that whole definition stop
being relevant for kinds of data we're talking about?

~~~
mcphilip
Working in the risk analytics space, "Big Data" seems to be marketing speak
for "you can dump all sorts of loosely structured data into this big bucket
and our tools will help you find meaningful trends in it." I've yet to see an
installation approaching anything near 300GB, so I think of big data as the
new sexier label to put on ad hoc data mining applications.

~~~
jeltz
But if it is for running ad hoc data mining on relatively small amounts of
data, wouldn't a traditional SQL database do the job just as well? Especially
with with features like the JSON support in PostgreSQL.

~~~
threeseed
PostgreSQL has terrible sharding and clustering support.

So no I would not be using it for any big data projects.

~~~
jeltz
I was going by mcphilip's description which was <300GB. For running data
mining on so small datasets you do not need any sharding.

------
jameshart
I wonder to what extent the AGPL license actually facilitates the creation of
a commercial business based on the software; large online service customers
who would be willing to use even GPL software without paying anybody for it
might be more likely to opt to negotiate a commercial license for AGPL code.

If that is the case, though, and their revenue model is based on providing
non-AGPL access to MongoDB, doesn't that rather put MongoDB in the position of
commercially exploiting the work of developers who contribute their code under
the expectation that it will be freely shared under AGPL?

~~~
mason55
_> doesn't that rather put MongoDB in the position of commercially exploiting
the work of developers who contribute their code under the expectation that it
will be freely shared under AGPL?_

While the MongoDB product is open source and licensed under the AGPL, they
very rarely accept outside contributions. A vast majority of the product was
built by 10gen/MongoDB, so this is less of an issue than it would be for
something like Postgres.

~~~
jameshart
Which seems like further evidence that the use of AGPL is somewhat
disingenuous - more a poison-pill than a genuine attempt to embrace free
software principles. If I use MongoDB, and modify it to suit my needs, I have
to make my changes available to anyone who consumes a service I back with my
modified MongoDB. MongoDB Inc., presumably by virtue of having licensing
agreements in place with all the copyright holders whose code is in their core
distribution of the product, have the ability not to do that. They could,
however, examine my improvements and do a cleanroom reimplementation of them.

The real risk to them is that a vastly improved fork of MongoDB is built up by
contributors who don't license over their contributions to MongoDB Inc.,
preventing their incorporation into commercial licensed versions...

~~~
jamesaguilar
The GPLs are _meant_ to be poison pills. That's what they are for. Mongo's use
of the license this way is standard, then in addition they allow you to buy
the antidote.

~~~
belorn
People giving out code for free is poisonous? Here is someone people saying:
"Hey, wrote some nice software. Here. You want it? Take it. We like it. It's
Free.".

Now if you want to take that software and give it to someone else, they ask
you to not go around the hide where you got it, what changes you made to it,
and not sue people for patents over that software.

Its a polite, if backed up statement, that people can't go around using other
people software and then be exploitative about it. Play nice, or do not play
at all. Is it really your view that doing so is poisonous?

------
bane
I bet In-Q-Tel is _very_ happy with this. Between MongoDB and Palantir their
recent investments have been doing really well.

~~~
epoxyhockey
They have the easiest job in the world. They invest in a company, then have
their _deep-pocketed client_ buy services from that company.

------
mkhalil
Whenever I see something like this, I can't help but think this is just a
business deal. Nothing to do with technology. Rich business men are going to
get richer because they can get away with over-valuing technology and tricking
their non-tech savy investors into thinking this will make them a buttload.
Some sort of quasi-pyramid scheme.

------
geertj
Congrats to MongoDB. But for me they became pretty much irrelevant after
PostgreSQL 9.1 added a JSON datatype.

~~~
gregwebs
Postgres 9.2 gives you the ability to index and query JSON, but you still
can't atomically update portions of the JSON which is very limiting.

~~~
giulianob
It seems 9.2 can solve a lot of use cases but when they have partial updates,
I'll cry tears of joy.

------
zshprompt
Yesterday I was just talking to some folks about how they lock on the DATABASE
for a transaction. Yey.

~~~
moox
Your folks were wrong. They lock on the collection and only on some types of
queries.

~~~
scottbessler
No, they lock the entire database for every write.

"MongoDB uses a readers-writer [1] lock that allows concurrent reads access to
a database but gives exclusive access to a single write operation."

"Beginning with version 2.2, MongoDB implements locks on a per-database basis
for most read and write operations. Some global operations, typically short
lived operations involving multiple databases, still require a global
“instance” wide lock. Before 2.2, there is only one “global” lock per mongod
instance."

source:
[http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/faq/concurrency/](http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/faq/concurrency/)

~~~
MichaelGG
Yes that's the part that just kills me. It was a _system-wide_ lock, and now
it's just _per-DB_. I just don't see how anyone can take that seriously.

Also, why bother with a buffer pool manager when you've got mmap, right?

------
teh_klev
It's a shame they didn't think about the name a bit longer. In the UK "Mongo"
is a fairly disparaging term and I find it hard to pitch MongoDB to customers
because of this.

~~~
bigdubs
This is, actually, a real concern. So many companies that want to make a foray
into enterprise sales don't think carefully about things that (on the surface)
seem inconsequential but are actually hurting your business.

~~~
yapcguy
You're right.

It's still hard to recommend GIMP to someone looking for an alternative to
Photoshop.

Mongo is likely to be a similar distraction:

[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mong](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mong)

~~~
sigzero
It doesn't seem to be hurting them at all actually. Mong, mongo/mongodb are
not the same word it seems either. So whoever would make that cognitive
connection would be wrong anyway.

------
bborud
Good, now they only need to deliver a database :)

~~~
tolitius
or, given the quality of existing async/fsync guarantees, they'd be better off
with just taking the money and running.. away.. fast

------
mratzloff
> _MongoDB ... now has about 600 customers, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
> and MetLife Inc._

I wonder what services they sell to scale it to those customers. It sure
doesn't come that way out of the box. Any Mongo customers here?

~~~
albedo
GS doesn't use it for applications that require massive scaling, they already
have their own infrastructure in place for that.

~~~
mratzloff
That's what I was hinting at. MongoDB, the company, is trading on the Goldman
name, but Goldman isn't using it for scaling at all.

------
gregwebs
Please use this money to buy the TokuTek fork. I always expected the storage
layer to have made much greater progress by now.

------
frostnovazzz
A month ago I was contacted by a recruiter about some engineering opportunity.
I was surprised to know that MongoDB gives me the feeling of Tech company like
G or FB. I always thought of MongoDB as kind of an open source product. I
started to learn how it operate as a business. I think this is a sign that
enterprise-targeted business are rising, and there will be more and more of
this kind of start ups in the future.

------
mbesto
Curious - what systems has MongoDB replaced in enterprise companies (like
Goldman Sachs, etc)?

~~~
jzwinck
I think a common answer would be "text files." And of course, grep and awk.

~~~
mattdeboard
We're replacing at least one collection with text files. That's half Mongo's
fault, half our fault for using it to store the kind of info we're storing.

------
alphadevx
I know they're hiring like crazy in their new office in Dublin. Big growth
spurt, massive cash injection, interesting to see if they become the first big
"enterprisey" NoSQL provider.

------
jbverschoor
I was already moving away from mongo

~~~
troymc
I'm curious what you're moving to.

~~~
orthecreedence
I'm moving away too (er, have already moved). I have chosen RethinkDB and am
very happy with it so far.

I think the most important thing to me is that the Rethink guys haven't lied
about the database's capabilities and limitations.

10gen did. Both in their marketing and in their sales pitch to us when I
worked at Aol. Never once did anybody mention a global write lock when we were
talking to them about a write-heavy application.

------
ateevchopra
Congratulations to the team ! Finally hardwork they have done is paying off.
Hope you will continue to make awesome fast databases like ever !

------
dpweb
Not a fan of Mongo personally, but understand the context of what is happening
in corporate IT. Slashing and commoditization. They look at the $10M line item
for Oracle and say wait a minute.. The last section of the article was the
most telling.. We replace the millions $ and staff with a $5000 server. Just
like trading in your US employee for an offshore replacement at 1/5th the
cost. They love that message.

Remember too, the quality of the tech is one factor (way down on the list) in
decision making of what these companies buy.

As far as the tech, Relational DB is certainly not the problem and even if it
was, Mongo wouldn't be the solution. Mongo's riding the wave of slash and
burn, and Oracle has pissed on more than a few customers over the years,
basically with the attitude.. "where you gonna go!" Any company gets a toe-
hold in big companies like Mongo has gonna be looked on very favorably by Wall
St right now..

Mongo will get bought for sure, the valuation is not that nuts.

------
ffrryuu
These valuations makes joining MongoDB right now a very bad idea.

------
leokun
Exciting to think what this might mean for RethinkDB some day. :)

------
dkhenry
Congratulations Mongo. Hopefully they can keep up the pace of improvements
they have done over the past few years.

------
dschiptsov
Now we could see how deceptive sales technologies and media manipulations are
leading to ridiculous valuations instead of any new technologies or even
appropriate (for a persistent storage engine) design decisions.

Still enjoying table-level locking on writes and lack of atomic writes in so-
called transactions at $1,2B valuation?)

The same story as it was of MySQL prior to stabilized InnoDB (5.1.x) an
extremely popular crap with table-level locks, silent data conversions and
millions of ignorant 'satisfied customers'.

By the same logic PHP must be valued at one trillion - millions of satisfied
cheap coders, and, you know, Facebook was written in it.)

------
mathattack
Impressive. And they're actually a real big data company, not one just tagging
big data onto what they do.

~~~
dharshanr
If you having issues managing or scaling MongoDB you need to use a service
like MongoDirector.com - make its really easy to deploy and scale shards (even
in your own cloud account)

~~~
kansface
Mongo shards are not the answer: [http://aphyr.com/posts/284-call-me-maybe-
mongodb](http://aphyr.com/posts/284-call-me-maybe-mongodb)

Per the article, Mongo picks just P out of CAP ...

------
hacknat
This is crazy. If I had known that I could gin up money for a crappy database
I would have written one. This seems unfair, but we'll be joking about this in
10-15 years.

------
neovive
Any recommendations for a good MongoDB book or course?

~~~
arkham
The 2nd Edition of the MongoDB: The Definitive Guide from O'Reilly is one I
can recommend (full disclosure: I was a technical reviewer on that edition).
[http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920028031.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920028031.do)

For basics, the Little MongoDB Book ([http://openmymind.net/2011/3/28/The-
Little-MongoDB-Book/](http://openmymind.net/2011/3/28/The-Little-MongoDB-
Book/)) is a bit dated at this stage, but a good starting point.

Finally, there are free MongoDB courses available at
[http://education.mongodb.com](http://education.mongodb.com) in various
flavors of programming language, as well as an ops/DBA focused course.

------
davidu
Anyone have estimates what their revenue or run-rate is?

