Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So many people in this thread don’t understand how enterprise decisions get made.

The business license costs $21/month, probably less in reality.

Do you really think that businesses are going to jeopardize the workflows of their $250k/year assets over a very core piece of software for $250/year?

Any alternative has switching costs and risks. Companies will just pay this. I see so many people saying “just do these 10 steps and it’s basically the same”. It just ain’t worth it for $250




That’s assuming some kind soul in engineering management has the patience and leverage to guide this through 10 layers of purchasing, procurement, finance, legal etc…

Another likely outcome is that it’s “easier” for teams to switch to another tool (easier in that at least they’re not waiting on a third party for approval) and everyone loses a lot of time

Big corporations are not the most efficient beasts for this kind of situation


I've been fortunate enough to work at companies where engineers were trusted to make small purchasing decisions. It works well for a while, but eventually everyone accumulates a lot of random recurring charges and the company cracks down.

$21 is nothing for a one-time spend.

$21 per month per employee is now $252/year per employee, but now you also need someone managing all of these licenses and accounting. Every new employee or team change requires some juggling of licenses with associated turn-around times before that person can get started.

It's not bad when it's just a couple key pieces of software, but it doesn't take long before every engineer has some mix of 20 different subscription tools and platforms and licenses and you're on the phone with a different vendor every week doing the annual subscription renewal pricing negotiation dance. The sales people know how this works and would prefer to wear you down with endless conference calls until you get tired of negotiating and just pay the new, higher price they're asking.

Soon, all of those "cheap" tools have added up to $1000/month or more per employee with a couple people dedicated to managing these licenses and negotiating with vendors all of the time. And it's terrible.

When the tool isn't easily replaceable, you deal with it. I'm not sure I see that with Docker Desktop, though. When you get a new hire, do you tell them to submit a ticket with licensing and wait until they can get their Docker Desktop license? Or do you simply write some documentation about how to accomplish tasks without using Docker Desktop so you can remove another external dependency? Teams generally gravitate toward the latter.


> requires some juggling of licenses with associated turn-around times

This! I've always said that a bit reason for FLOSS to win over the internet server-side is because scaling fast and juggling livenses is just too hard. Especially with the prying eyes of Oracle/MSFT/etc's powerful legal teams and hidden "phone home" code.

Going with a LAMP stack was just to simplest way to keep moving at speed.


I’ve had this very conversation with work colleagues. We can go through the inordinate-pain of acquiring a licence, and all that entails, or we can choose open-source solution and be making progress by the end of the day.

There’s a dozen services I could buy for work that would probably improve things dramatically, for very little cost, but almost nothing is worth the pain of “get sign off. Get sign off again. Fill in paperwork. Wait n weeks. Get more sign off. Wait even longer for finance to do their thing.”


What would have happened if Microsoft had put some clause in volume licenses that said "you can use a system unlicensed for up to 30 days before paying for a license".

Then engineering can spin up loads of instances to test stuff and scale fast with minimal hassle, and it'll be the purchasing team playing catchup later, no longer in the decisionmaking path.


For non-prod/qa/testing/dev stuff Microsoft provides MSDN/Visual Studio Subscriptions which provide specially licensed versions of their operating systems and software. Everyone who uses the MSDN software must have their own subscription and it can’t be used by real users/customers except in a limited dev/test capacity (e.g. UAT).


People do that with EAs. Once they figure out that it’s happening, they have various means to detect it.


that trick might work once or twice, until a hard policy comes into effect after the company gets burned.


One other big factor: certain other vendors have very aggressive sales tactics which essentially boil down to “buy a bunch of stuff you don’t need or we’ll audit every computer in your company and charge a penalty for anything we can find to quibble with”.

Docker doesn’t need to actually do that to run afoul of policies based on the scar tissue from those other vendors. Simply going from “you can use it without being sued” to “we have to pay people to make sure we’ll win” will increase the perceived cost at many large shops.


Yup, this is the concern. Having been kindly asked by Oracle to remove virtualbox extensions, this sort of gotcha/conditional pricing feels dangerous


The big thing for me is the question of the future: they say they currently won't be predatory about it[1] and I have no reason to doubt that the people saying that are being completely honest, but we don't know who will be working there in the future or where the next acquisition/merger will take them.

Without a contract, it's hard to disagree with the policy types who are going to ask what protects the organization if that happens. Once you go down this path even a little, the barriers to entry at large organizations go up since you have to look at it from the perspective of both the upfront cost and possible future cost / off-ramps.

1. https://twitter.com/scottcjohnston/status/143272649295845376...


Docker is a company that won’t exist in a few years, so a promise of leniency now means nothing.

When they are merged into some other big company, that company will look to milk the cow by going after license compliance. It happens every time.


My personal guess was that they get eaten by Microsoft and Docker will be integrated more deeply with VS (Code) and GitHub.


Some years back I tried to pay the $50 for the VBox extensions - small company and I was the only user. They were very confused, almost like they couldn’t understand that I really wanted to pay for something that I judged good value for the money.

They ended up telling me to forget about it.

I guess that perhaps they only want to target large businesses.


How Oracle discovered you're using it?


Our company has a lot of processes that could be streamlined via containerization of build and development environments, across Windows, Mac, and Linux.

But arguing for $252/yr times a thousand developers (in the office I work in, at least; we have others elsewhere) is just untenable. If the value was there for us, then we could get it signed off on, but there's no way to build that value because now it's too expensive to get started.


> When you get a new hire, do you tell them to submit a ticket with licensing and wait until they can get their Docker Desktop license

that's how it's worked for me - in my last job spent 3 weeks waiting for a Qt License, Intel compiler license, MSVC license...


Someone making $250k/year shouldn't think twice dropping $21/month on a tool that truly makes them more productive.

A year or two ago I bought a personal license to Ubuntu FIPS after being urgently asked to debug an issue w/ Python's OpenSSL bindings. Unsurprisingly it turned out that my company had an enterprise license, and had I known whom to contact (which I didn't), I could have gotten a license key in a couple of days. But why waits days and potentially many thousands of dollars of time when I could buy a license now and get started immediately?

Frankly, it's weird how Silicon Valley employees making obscene amounts of money balk at personal expenses as if they're some minimum wage employee being victimized by their employer nickel-and-diming them. But that's just me. In fact, except at startups, Silicon Valley corporations neither expect this nor even give you credit for taking such initiative.


Because it establishes an exploitative precedent that shouldn't be followed. Because it hides the true cost of a project, which may result in poor decisions later on. Because the cost of a decision/process should fall on the person or company who has the ability to change it. Because using wages to pay for business expenses wasn't part of the employment agreement. Any one of these would suffice.

For personal expenses (meaning expenses for my own hobby projects, not "personal expenses" to mean business expenses paid by an employee as you have used it), $21 would be a quick decision. But using that same $21 to shore up a faulty requisition process? Nope, not at all.


> Because it establishes an exploitative precedent that shouldn't be followed.

It also allows small creators to survive.

I'm working on hybrid mobile apps again after a long break. The number of essential packages in both the Ionic/Capacitor/Cordova and React Native ecosystems that are "looking for maintainers" (think: camera functionality) and have long lists of issues is frankly astounding, given the number of users of said packages.

An expectation to pay so the maintainers can maintain is a good thing in my book.


Except that's not the issue being discussed here. Expecting to pay for software development isn't a bad thing. Expecting the employee to pay out of pocket for business expenses is the exploitative behavior.


The problem is that there's simply no easy fix for these bureaucratic frictions and sub-optimal equilibriums. It's the nature of large organizations--they trade efficiencies in some areas for inefficiencies in others.

I decided long ago not to worry about such expenses because 1) the engineer in me hates this inefficiency and urges me to fix or work around it (depending on your perspective), 2) navigating bureaucratic red tape takes a personal toll, and as someone who is paid well I don't mind at all spending a trivial amount of money for my own wellbeing, even if its for work, and 3) as someone who has worked in startups and even founded one, I've both been in a position where I was expected to take on such expenses and expected others to do the same (at least as an initial matter[1]).

[1] The dilemma is that unless the purchaser faces some risk of incurring the expense themself, they're not as incentivized to consider the reasonableness of the purchase. The solution is either 1) requiring permission beforehand, or 2) hiring more mature employees who understand the nature of the dilemma and who have already factored this responsibility and risk into their negotiated compensation. The latter doesn't scale, though, which is why large organizations invariably regress to the former.


Unfortunately your policy, in a small way, perpetuates this ‘sub-optimal’ efficiency by obscuring the true cost of your work from your employer.

You’re making life harder for everyone else!


It's not about $x a month, it's about the friction of dropping any money at all. It could be 10c/year and still annoy everyone, because now they have to go through a procurement process, find someone with a company credit card, wrangle with reimbursement forms, etc.

Docker arguably should be charging more for it. The friction between $0 and $21/month is higher than the friction between $21/month and $60/month in a lot of ways.


This 1000x developers are lazy and generally don't want go throug bureaucratic hassle. Long run this just going to hurt docker when developers start using podman or some other free alternative.


A couple comments earlier people were talking about where does this stop, 1000$ a month? A 3D CAD license with the ability to do FEA is around 30 grand a year, I’ve seen seats of specialized software cost north of 100k a year per seat, and that’s for people that 100k is probably pretty close to their take home.

So where does it stop? Is 250$ ok but 1000 isn’t?

I think we’ve set the line just fine, if you want to cover opex out of pocket, cool. But don’t try to put that on people who can’t afford it.


So ignoring holidays, $250k/yr works out to $120/hr.

How long does it really take to set up the VM and port forwarding to have most of what people care for from docker desktop locally. A couple of hours. Let's say 3. So cost $360.

How long does it take to go through your average large company requisition process? Probably 2 hours over multiple weeks. So that's $84 for the license at the $7 tier, and $240 for the time spent dealing with the corporations self inflicted tedium. But hey, $324, still technically cheaper.

But then there's the opportunity cost of waiting two weeks to install fucking docker. I think we can all agree that's worth more than $36.

So I'll be looking at alternative solutions rather than deal with the corporate purchasing bureaucracy. Even if the purchasing manager was reacting in real time I'd probably consider it worth $36 not to deal with the process.


For companies it's not that easy though. Employees will accumulate services and don't cancel them, will leave without leaving any info on which services were bought for what purposes etc. Companies still need proper invoices and account for all charges. If they cannot accomplish this because employees forgot they bought services or have left without letting anyone know, the company is on the hook for it.

Having worked with procurement departments I can understand very well why employees should never be able to make purchasing decisions without someone from procurement in the loop.


As someone who went from the PA suburbs and small IT shops (where 75k was a premium salary) to the SF startup scene and Facebook, one of the observations that has stuck with me was the incredible cheapness of my wealthy tech peers. It's hard to explain unless you've been around people who do a whole lot more with a whole lot less.


Maybe they’re wealthy because they aren’t spending all their money on shit their employer should buy. You say cheap, others say “good with money”.


I noticed this exact same thing in my ex-FAANG colleagues. No judgment, just an observation.


Fixing this has to be a great business opportunity. Surely someone is already working on it?


A simple local k8s installation with a simple but effective GUI on top, running containerd instead of docker and with a CLI wrapper for docker commands, would be more than enough for everything I need.


My team is working on https://rancherdesktop.io/ and it's scary how closely matches we're doing (depending on what you consider to be effective UI)…


Yeah, but who's going to pay for that development? Especially since the targets are Windows and MacOS.


20 is an extremely low estimate. It is more like the greater of N solutions for N teams, and M solutions for M people.


It's almost as if a manager or engineer shouldn't manage the overall finances of a company or department... Gee, I wonder if there's a job title or something like that that could manage finances like this?

Real talk: Just hire people. The US especially has a huge amount of college educated people who struggle to find a job that matches their chosen education. If you can't find someone that matches the exact profile, pay for an education and training. As a company, don't accept just winging it - especially not if you have enough money.


This poster has clearly worked at the same kind of companies I have. Plenty of them would gladly burn 10x what it would cost to just buy the damn license on engineering man-hours switching something that's inferior but free. Because it doesn't show up as an expense on the annual budget.

The concept of opportunity cost is completely lost on a lot of business leaders.


A lot of the driver here is not in the moment short-sightedness, but rather a byproduct of the procurement or other finance processes (ironically often instituted with intent to prevent waste and fraud or make the company more efficient).

It’s not just the $250/yr/dev, but rather the requirements to create a new vendor in the ERP morass, to get approvals for an exception to the standards for payment terms (and/or methods), any requirements for vetting vendors, etc.

If you’re selling to an enterprise, don’t charge just above whatever the “employees can put it on their card without approval”. If you’re going to exceed that, you might as well exceed it by a lot. (If you’re going to make every developer file an expense report every month, I can readily prefer to do a lot of command line typing rather than filing an expense report… If I automate that for a lot of my fellow devs, I get to do something fun and be a minor folk hero.)

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-...


A lot of those enterprises already have Docker on the vendor list though, because of Docker Hub.


I suspect that most people running at the kind of scale where purchasing is hugely problematic are also running Artifactory or similar, not using Docker Hub.


If someone suggests a tool that costs $1k/yr over a free tool that costs $5k/year in extra work, I’m going to die on the free tool hill. Because the $1k/yr tool will disappear when the company goes defunct, or it won’t interoperate with something else and there is no way of fixing it. Or it can’t migrate to the next tool. Or we need to upgrade to an enterprise license because we become 21 developers instead of 20. Or they just bump the cost to $20k for whatever reason. Or the tool won’t work on CI servers because it only works after entering a key in an attended install (yes this is still a thing).

Free tools have a predictable and stable cost.

I have probably been burned more times from free tools over the years, but the scars aren’t as deep. It’s just a shrug and hoping the other project works when the first doesn’t.


> Free tools have a predictable and stable cost.

Unless they suddenly turn from free into a $21/month per person fee.


I think he means free as in open source, rather than free as in freeware. In which the worst case scenario is that you are stuck with the last open-source version, but at least you retain full control over your fork of the code and can add features and bug fixes as you see fit.


Indeed. Proprietary/Closed-source but costing $0 is the worst of both worlds.


Then I'll find the fork and use that. We have already done that a few times. There is a reason we audit all the licenses of open source software we have.


Exactly. I've never understood why capital or cash expense costs are valued so much differently than salary costs. I've had jobs (like any manager) where I have complete leeway on how I "spend" millions of dollars of people's time, but had to to through all kinds of approval to spend even the smallest amount of money.


Another example is if I want a $100 keyboard I need ahead of time VP sign off for the non-standard expense, if I want $10000/mo extra in AWS services I need any other engineer to approve my change


Yeah, that's what we decided when figuring this out at our company. Everyone is spending thousands of dollars a month of the company's money (their time). We either trust them to spend our money wisely, or we don't (and they should work elsewhere). So we don't have all these policies. Having said that, these policies are a result of size. You wouldn't spend money poorly when the company is just you and four friends in a garage. But when you're big enough, hiring problematic people is absolutely going to happen and they just see the company's money as a free money pot. We're in a middle ground right now, but, as we grow, are finding it hard to avoid trending more towards the meme corporate policies.


There are a few reasons:

- Reviewing purchases should put some reasonable controls around how much software you can accumulate. Adding to the tech stack has maintenance costs, and you don't really want to do it without some sort of review. In this case, it's not the dollars as much as the fit.

- With SaaS tools in particular, there are often privacy or security concerns. Those teams should review. Probably want legal's eyes on it to get the right terms in place as well. Again, less about the dollars here, and more about the agreement, risk, required disclosures (subprocessor, etc), and those kinds of factors.

- On the spend itself, you'd be surprised how this adds up, especially if folks are signing multi-year deals and not bothering to negotiate licensing. Remember, if it's easy for you and me to buy, it's easy for everyone else to buy too, and it multiplies quickly.

Now, on one-off hardware purchases and such, I agree it should be a lot easier. At least at the startup I work at, anything under $500 is just an expense report, so just make sure your manager is cool with it and go for it. But there are considerations here also around stuff coming in that IT or facilities then needs to support - obligating their time with your purchase is something you need to agree on or avoid.

EDIT: Also as someone else pointed out, grift on purchase orders is easy without any oversight.


A lot of it is path dependency whereby various practices turn into processes, regulations and laws. On top of this narratives form that guide peoples thinking as to what the right financial decisions are, then people can start to believe these narratives over time without questioning them. Eventually companies can create certain processes or habits on the basis that those narratives need to be true: https://www.epsilontheory.com/what-do-we-need-to-be-true/


graft is a serious issue with purchase orders, its much less of an issue with salaries.


A big advantage of using free open source software is that the licensing prices will never increase because the company needs a new revenue stream to support its business model.

Docker Desktop was free, now it's $21/month, what will it cost next year when Docker needs more money?


That depends on how many frogs contentedly stay in the pot.


Licensing prices might not increase, but paid technical support costs could theoretically be unlimited. Especially if you're at the mercy of an open-source software that isn't well-maintained.


I’ve seen companies burn half a million in developer time to save 10k or less several times.

Oh some JavaScript graphing library is expensive. Let’s roll our own!

Heroku meets our needs 100% let’s spend millions to switch to K8 and have a much worse experience.


The 4 hours I spent learning the basics of d3 and then couple hours a night for a few weeks working through examples (of others and of my own design) really gave me a powerful new tool for charting applications. Rolling your own is difficult to justify, but "learn and use d3 (BSD licensed)" seems an entirely reasonable alternative to a high-priced commercial offering.


How much of that is developers doing it because they want to make something new?


> The concept of opportunity cost is completely lost on a lot of business leaders.

A lot of it is that opportunity cost really isn't the problem of many business units. I spent a week building a crappy version of codecov for our few repos.

Dev won't get in trouble for that because opportunity cost isn't a thing for us as a cost centre.


Unless there is a security audit and the dev has to justify why non authorized software is on the company network.


This.

Buying anything on my organization costs something around $10k. Add your price to this to discover the total we are spending.

That's on financial cost. The opportunity cost of stopping technical people to handle the technical details of an acquisition is just huge, and larger the most differentiation there is on the market.


Heh heh... so true it hurts. Why spend 3 years pushing it past risks reviews and oversight committees when you could just write a crappy version that does what you need?

Legal alone will spend months looking at run-of-the-mill software contacts trying to negotiate absurd concessions from vendors in situations where they clearly have no bargaining power.

We can spend a lot of money on Oracle for their profoundly obtuse products though.


> trying to negotiate absurd concessions from vendors in situations where they clearly have no bargaining power

I got front-line seats at a company with tens of millions in revenue try to get payment processor to remove escrow terms from the contract.

Said company got blocked at tier 2 support. They refused to escalate for a company who wasn’t a customer, especially when legal stuff was involved. Tier 2 had a script specifically for people like us.

I regret not bringing popcorn to that phone call.

In short: “Those aren’t our terms; those are the terms of a billion-dollar bank. Sign it or leave.”

They were very much not impressed with our claim to being the second-largest widget maker in the world.


Yep, I’ve been there, I was a consultant in London charging 700 pounds a day, and my hands were tied because of a silly 50 USD license expense and couldn’t work for a month.

I asked if I could just pay it myself, but was told that would violate the IT department guidelines and possibly an SLA too, so I just sat there for a month, reminding everyone at the daily stand ups I was blocked. I couldn’t believe it.

I was not the only one who was tied in red tape there, it was indeed normal.

This company was making 600 million a year in profit.


Perhaps you're not understanding corporate bureaucracy. Nobody wants to be the manager who gets fired for trying to save $25k by switching from Docker Desktop to {insert random open source project here}. Not only is it not worth the time or the risk, but the engineering manager's exact purpose is to traverse the corporate bureaucracy. It gives them job security. Plus the engineering manager can negotiate big discounts with the vendor and can brag about that on their own performance reviews.


That is not the point he was making. It's about wanting to get the licenses procured but the process being unreasonably laborious so people just don't bother. The problem isn't cost, it's the mess of corporate wastelands.


It's not the manager, it's some department somewhere else that'll take weeks to respond and then you'll have to chat with them about it and they'll be like "i don't see why this is necessary"


It's very impactful though, it'll probably be people seeing it as highly visible and career-advancing who manage to muster the 'patience and leverage'.

If the org's been thoughtful to in advance, it's at the level of being almost an operational risk - all of engineering uses this tool, tool's licence or pricing might change, retooling has an associated cost and down-time.


Easier method to deal with monthly payment...Create a purchase order with 12 lines. One line for each month with dollar amounts defined. The purchase order serves as the "approval" so Accounts Payable can process without asking for coding information.

Example: I only have to revisit licensing once a year, to create a new 12 line purchase order. It's still a pain but I prefer purchase orders vs dealing with credit cards. In addition, querying expense history for purchase order lines provides far more detail vs querying a credit card platform. Credit card history tends to go into a black hole.

One possible hitch...Some companies might restrict Accounts Payable from receiving purchase orders for separation-of-duties reasons.


You can drill through layers of that crap if you can sell something through aws marketplace or equivalent thing that your company is already set up to spend millions a month.

Not sure how would that work for a desktop tool. It's in them to figure that out though


I really doubt that procurement is going to be harder than switching a technology out.


Entirely depends on the organization, I used to think this too but then I encountered some organizations (granted ones with entirely dysfunctional procurement processes) where switching technologies was easier and less risky to schedules than going down the procurement process. The risk of missing deadlines and blowing out schedules is the factor that tends to be on people's minds when procurement is brutally slow.


OpEx is much easier to get vs CapX. That's why so many things are subscription now. (also Sarbaines Oxley pushed vendors into subscription models)


> OpEx is much easier to get vs CapX

Not where I work at. IT opex are a recurring cost item with no visible benefits, so are squeezed dry at every annual budget review. Capex are seen as investments into something new and good and their impact on the bottom line is amortized over several years.


Now I'm curious: Sarbanes-Oxley pushed vendors into subscription models? How? What exactly did it change in the cost-benefit picture?


S/O changed the way that revenue was recognized when a vendor sold product and services to implement. Basically, you had to wait until the implementation services were completed to recognize product revenue. Time to complete services could be multi-year and customer dependent.


> Big corporations are not the most efficient beasts for this kind of situation

What situation, being trapped? I'm not sure what size has to do with it. Are small corporations maybe more ... agile?


Sometimes you can put these things on CC rather than P.O.


Yes, yes they would. And they do. Regularly.

When you've spent enough time in the IT Department, you'll see companies demand that you "cut laptop costs" or similar. Because when you're buying 250 laptops a year, the people with the budgets go "OMG we're spending half a million a year on laptops". So changes are made to the configuration, maybe small SSD but often times it'll be something like less RAM, or slower CPU - because purchasing controls aren't that fine. Great, you've now cut $200 per laptop and the money people are excited to see you've saved $50,000/year.

Do they understand that now there are 250 people, which probably all cost more than $100,000/year, whom aren't quite as efficient as they could be? Nope. And they don't care. The budget says you get X. The personnel cost is attributed in some other category not to be touched.

Almost no one at a higher level looks at the puzzle and goes "Well we should spend $250/year to get this $250,000 asset productive". They look at the situation and go "We've got 100 developers, ain't no way we're spending $25k/year on this product. It's not in budget."

Lastly the per-employee cost adds up. It's $11/mo for SSO. $18/mo for email suite. $19/mo for Gitlab. $14/mo for Jira. $5/mo for Confluence. $3/mo just to put SAML on Jira & Confluence. $8/mo for Password vault. $12/mo for Slack. $17/mo fro Zoom. $17/mo for Lucidchart. $12/mo for Laptop MDM. That's not everything an employee needs, heck it doesn't even cover HR products (Workday? 15Five? Applicant Tracking?), Training (probably a couple of those), EDR/AV for laptops, and dozens of other smaller services. Sure adding another $21/mo isn't going to change the number a lot on an individual basis, but it adds up really fast when you multiply it out across all your Developers.

And don't forget. How do you rationalize that your container software costs more than your source code control solution? One of those two things you can very easily live without... and it's Docker.


You basically typed out what I feel.

Let me add something useful here and say that it even has a name:

"subscription fatigue"

I was fine paying Netflix for an all-I-can-watch even if I ended up watching less than a DVDs worth of content just for the convenience of not keeping a stack of DVDs around.

I'm not fine with paying Netflix, HBO, Disney, my cable provider, NRK (state owned broadcastee,mandatory) etc etc a monthly or yearly fee.

So I just drop it: it is not like I need to watch it.

Same with tools: I'm happy to bug my company to pay for IntelliJ as long as NetBeans is stuck in its current spot, we already pay for Jira and Confluence but I am always seeking out the open source solutions, - partially because I'm old enough to realize that $n in subscription means $n x 12 x m devs a year, partially no cost open source (contrary to popular belief here) is less hassle and partially because going proprietary feels like paying Dane geld.

Edit:

> Almost no one at a higher level looks at the puzzle and goes "Well we should spend $250/year to get this $250,000 asset productive". They look at the situation and go "We've got 100 developers, ain't no way we're spending $25k/year on this product. It's not in budget."

Probably true in most places and it is sometimes a problem.

But that institutional hesitation is also a powerful defense against every vendor who wants to inject themselves somewhere and then start jacking up the prices.


The places where I worked there's an inverse relationship - the smaller the cost, the harder it is to justify with finances. ($4000 monthly AWS bill for "testing purposes"? No questions asked. $10 wireless mouse? Mission impossible!)


In case you aren't aware, it's easy to explain by that fact that most finance departments are afraid to question your spendings on grounds of looking incompetent.

So it's less about 10$ and more about: "I understand what a wireless mouse is and it doesn't look mission critical to me."

"No idea what those items on that AWS bill mean, but I'll probably be better off not asking"


If you must exist in this kind of organization use this to your advantage. Get involved in important projects, setup purchase proposals, then make sure you add in new laptops, cables, mice, extra monitors, and whatever other accessories you need. Do you have a remote KVM attached to all 100 servers? Yes. Will finance care if you add 100 monitors, keyboards, mice, etc? Nope. Will your vendor happily add those on to the price? Yup. How do you get involved in projects? Find a Director or VP who wants to get something done and say "yes" or "we'll find a way" to whatever it is they want to do. Then do your research and give them a proposal: "We can accomplish X in 24 months with Y headcount and Z equipment budget". If you can cultivate a reputation as someone who "gets things done" eventually you will find the normal rules no longer apply to you. Finance will stop asking questions about your projects.

You have three rational choices: 1. Play the game, 2. Keep your head down, 3. Quit and move to a company that doesn't play those games.

Sitting around complaining that a big company has crappy inefficient processes is like complaining that water is wet. A complete waste of time and makes you look incompetent to other people in the company who are playing the game. These inefficient processes end up optimizing for people who know how to talk the code and cultivate the right relationships. Take advantage of that.


Yep, large companies work like congress.

First you need something core to start a bill around. Let's make a law that makes it easier to buy guns.

But no one is going to vote for that, so let's give it a name you CAN'T say no to. It will henceforth be known as "The Child and Family Home Protection Act".

Great we have a cool name and we have a law significant enough to send to the floor of congress. Now let's get enough people to promise to vote for it so we don't waste our time. Oh, Congressman X says that he would vote for it as long as we add another law about funding polar bear research. Sure, whatever just add it in, we need the votes. Congresswoman Y says she will vote for it if we add a law about requiring masks at church. We need the votes, tack it on. Congressman Z has been trying to get more tanks sent to Afghanistan for nearly a decade, if we add that in I bet he will vote for out law too.

Then these things get bundled up and sent to the floor where people vote on laws with fun marketing names added to them.

The same thing happens in business. You start off with a core project like a new ERP system. Give it a complex sounding name that no one in accounts payable will say no to. Then we add in a bunch of computers into the budget that we have been trying to get for 2 years. Add a new printer. Throw in some docker desktop licenses for our developers, and then bundle it up and send it to Accounts Payable. Bam, now you have docker desktop licenses and new computers. You're welcome.


You forgot a critical part of bill names - there has to be a terribly forced backronym made out of it.


“2.4Ghz Laser Based Human Interface Device, $10” seems cheap approved.


Too cheap. Been in a few places where getting 700k for something with a boring but plausible name was a no questions asked thing, but trying to get a $15 miro board license was literally impissible. I paid for a lot of tools out of my own pocket to avoid the hassle. I bet I am not alone with this approach.


It's not even about the price or approval. For mental health, I'll pay for my keyboard and mouse from a local shop rather than get a quote from an approved provider, submit it for approval, submit it to IT, submit the receipt to process expenses, and wait for delivery of an approved-crappy-hardware. (with two run corrections because I didn't fill out the forms properly) It's not worth it.


Agree. I have subsidized places where I worked due to this. Bosses often say - oh don't pay yourself but then when you put in the request for something months will go by waiting for that certain manager to say yes or no. Face to face or on the phone it's easy to get a 'yes but first send me the proposal/information', only then to get ignored. Yeah you can keep pushing and finally get the item you need months later, but by then the project is over cause you or someone else hacked together or found a free solution... or worse used a personal credit card.


he, well said. It's basically the bike shed effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality


Exactly. Cost is a proxy for importance (usually). I can’t be bothered to approve your $10 mouse, but I can be bothered to approve your $10k AWS budget.


;D damn right…. Wanted to buy a css framework extension for 50$ - Mission impossible ..


I honestly don't think I could get Docker Desktop through our procurement process before the end of the grace period. It's not a matter of "this is peanuts" as much as "we're guaranteed to breach the license terms if we keep using this thing, so everyone has to get off it now." And then once it's gone, we'll limp along with whatever plugs the gap until something else emerges a as a winner, which probably won't be Docker Desktop.


This reminds me of the genius of AWS. The engineering team can just buy whatever they want, no questions asked.


Hey we get asked plenty of questions when the bill comes in :)


That sort of depends on the size of business under discussion. If you are a Fortune 500 with 2,000 engineers who all need licenses... half a million in licensing costs is not always the easiest sell.

Of course, that fortune 500 is going to pick up the phone and demand to pay 1/4 of that (and they'll probably get it). Enterprise sales is fun


*Actual fun may vary.


Many engineers at large companies won't want to bother dealing with the headaches around licensing software and spending money, whether it's $2/mo or $21/mo or $200/mo.

If it's a core part of my job and the best option available, it'd be worth it, but if there's any reasonable alternative, I'll go download that today instead of wading through all of the lawyers and approvals and compliance to use something slightly better.


If you're getting started, sure.

If you already have a live deployment then the company's bigger fear is the a risk of switching to a completely new infrastructure and they'll all of a sudden push the paperwork quickly to stay on their existing codebase.


Even when the purchase process has been streamlined it's still a headache for a piece of software I might only use 1-2 times a year.


It’s not at all about the price. Obviously a corporation can afford that. It’s the sheer dread of even starting the procurement process in your average corporation that your average developer must overcome, that is the barrier.

I’d rather investigate an alternative like running it on a VM than deal with that. Actually I’d rather shave my face with some mace in the dark than deal with that.


>Do you really think that businesses are going to jeopardize the workflows of their $250k/year assets over a very core piece of software for $250/year?

Tech companies? No, they will probably cough up until they have another solution.

IT departments in non-tech companies? Yes. I fully expect a circus there. Many won't have known it was being used, purchasing will have their ego bruised by a company "hijacking" them and won't want to pay, and so on.


> The business license costs $21/month

No, it costs $21/user/month.

> Do you really think that businesses are going to jeopardize the workflows of their $250k/year assets over a very core piece of software for $250/year?

I work for a big enterprise that is currently going through a transition that is simultaneously a cloud transition and a transition to more critically consider tooling with license management overhead (which for a $21/seat license, is probably a significantly larger cost in a big, bureaucratic enterprise than the license cost itself.)

That said, there's a good argument that the things that you get for that $21/seat are things many enterprises will find are still worth the license cost + license management overhead. On the other hand, most of that is stuff that doesn't scale with number of developer seats, so a subscription model that doesn't work on that basis and therefore doesn't impose the kind of license management overhead that per-seat licensing does would probably net Docker more revenue while imposing less total costs on enterprises.


> No, it costs $21/user/month.

Do you guys not realize that I know that? I did the maths standardized to one seat.

I’m not also suggesting that the entire engineering spend for 100+ person companies is $250k/year.

Do the analysis on a per unit cost because that’s how life works: per unit cost of human capital and per unit cost of software vs. per unit value creation.


> Do you guys not realize that I know that?

Did you not read the rest of the post? I think you knew the license fee was per seat, I think you just think you failed (and fail, still) to understand the significance of that on the actual cost to the business imposed, of which the license fee itself is only a fraction.


It's not the amount of money that is the issue, the issue is that it this wasn't budgeted into the project when it was proposed 2 years ago. It is software that falls under category S which means you can't use overhead funds it has to be a category S purchase, but you have no category S funds budgeted to the project because you were using free software.

Being so cheap actually complicates the matters even more, since the finance people don't really want to mess with purchases less than $5,000, even though it is their own rule that requires all software to go through them regardless of cost. It just means they won't be willing to help very much.


Exactly. This makes sense.

USD 21 per user/month + bulk discount is nothing.

If companies want to roll their own they can, but most won't. Docker Desktop adds a lot of value if only by removing the hassle for quick os-agnostic development.


What is the value add for Docker Desktop?

In a world where podman exists, what's the point of docker on dev machines anyway?


How about the fact that not all, or even most, dev machines run Linux, which is the only platform podman supports?


I don't use podman, but a quick search shows that you can install podman on Linux, Windows, and MacOS. Are you referring to something else?

https://podman.io/getting-started/installation


> Podman is a tool for running Linux containers. You can do this from a MacOS desktop as long as you have access to a linux box either running inside of a VM on the host, or available via the network. You need to install the remote client and then setup ssh connection information.

Literally the first non-title element in your link. Just because the client is cross-platform doesn't mean the entire solution is turn-key cross-platform.


That's exactly what docker desktop does as well. A Macos or Windows client that runs docker in a Linux VM. There is a really limited concept of container on Windows, but it's far from being great and since not much people use Windows in production to run apps, this is not really usefull.


Well yeah, sure, but Docker for Mac/Windows installs the VM, sets up host-guest file shares, papers over networking and VPN stuff, etc.

I was going to say that installing Podman on macOS/Windows leaves the VM as an exercise to the user, but per another comment, there's podman-machine[1], a new-ish built in to setup a VM. However, it's apparently already deprecated (?) and recommends simply 'Vagrant' as an alternative, so seemingly setting up the VM is back to being a user exercise for Podman?

[1]: https://github.com/boot2podman/machine


The integration (the Linux VM is transparent to the user) is what makes all the difference.


This is currently its big weakness in my opinion.

Most of the problems that devs are facing with docker are not actually docker but this layer that tries to abstract the VM. So in the end, it's quite common that you have fix things in the VM or get rid of it. I don't know if docker on WSL2 makes the matter better, none of the devs in my team using Windows can use it because of the memory usage bug.


Oh yes, whilst Docker was created to help developers to think operationally, it (ironically) ended up helping Developers to not think about operations at all.


If you read the instructions, they basically say that you still need a Linux VM or WSL environment to run Podman in. Which makes it not a complete replacement for Docker desktop, which handles the VM for you. So OP isn't wrong.


Podman 3.3 and up has `podman machine`, which is supposed to do this for you...


Apparently it's already deprecated https://github.com/boot2podman/machine ?


That's an unrelated tool named "podman-machine". "podman machine", as in the subcommand to "podman" proper, is not deprecated.


So that's a couple hours for the first dev to make a list of WSL setup instructions or a VM template, and 5 minutes each for every dev after.


Does Mac have any sort of built-in VM framework like Hyper-V?

I did not know that running basic Linux VMs was something you could do without downloading VMware or Virtual Box - which isn't as easy as just running a few scripts (especially in corporate environments where Brew and other tools might not be so readily available to all employees).


> Does Mac have any sort of built-in VM framework like Hyper-V?

Two, actually. Hypervisor.framework [0] to build virtualization solutions on top of a lightweight hypervisor, without third-party kernel extensions, and Virtualization.framework, to create virtual machines and run Linux-based operating systems.

[0] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/hypervisor?languag...

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization?lan...


Thanks for the tip. I will have to take a look. It'd be nice if there were some github repos out there that leveraged this to make experimenting with Linux distros (including Desktop environments) as seamless as it is with VMWare Workstation - where things like high DPI resolution, copy & paste, etc. just work without too much trouble.


I meant that for windows. I don't have enough experience with mac to give great answers.

> downloading VMware or Virtual Box - which isn't as easy as just running a few scripts (especially in corporate environments where Brew and other tools might not be so readily available to all employees).

Docker Desktop needs the same level of access, because it runs virtual machines. If you could install it on your own, can't you install those on your own? If it was centrally managed, then IT can switch to one of those programs instead.

> Does Mac have any sort of built-in VM framework like Hyper-V?

Yosemite added Hypervisor.framework, I guess?


The fact that you could do something alternative doesn’t mean it’s easy, supported, or streamlined for developers or company tech ops.

I don’t think that thinking like an engineer will help you understand the value add here.


Docker for Mac includes a Kubernetes cluster that’s way better than minikube etc.

Not sure the bare docker daemon VM wrapper has a defensible moat though. Maybe this does more in Windows?


Well, I hadn't heard of podman until now, and I imagine I'm not the only one. Does it consistently have functional parity with docker?


It doesn't matter if it has parity of functionality when Docker has grown to the point where it has name recognition with enterprises and a sales team that can engage with these large customers.

It needs to have parity in all other pseudo-layers (3rd party tool support, support plans, OS support, someone to sign a contract with, compliance tools, etc.) We know most of these go unused or have no real meaning to devs, but they unlock enterprise procurement.

I believe podman has a linkage to RedHat which may actually bring all of the things that procurement want to hear, but the question is whether the door is open to RedHat, or not. Procurement departments can be fickle, preferring Oracle for everything or the other way round trying to eradicate Oracle while permitting a combination of others. It's all politics based on previous experiences and opinions in the end.


trey-jones, I apologize, but I cannot reply to you directly.

The biggest showstopper for podman is that it runs entirely in userspace on Linux. Having said that, I use it as a drop-in replacement for Docker and it's only become better in the past year. This is somewhat irrelevant to the Docker Desktop product, as podman doesn't provide a nice packaged up solution, but you can use podman on Windows and Mac as long as you have a Linux host available, either as a guest VM or as a machine _elsewhere_ on the network, see [1]. I only use Linux if I can, and the ability to run images without having to run a daemon with root privileges is a very big bonus for me, but it might not be for you. Now I do wonder, how hard would it be to declare a minimal nixOS VM for running as one's podman host :)

[1]: https://podman.io/getting-started/installation.html


> The biggest showstopper for podman is that it runs entirely in userspace on Linux.

As I see it, that's the whole selling point. Need to have something with limited rights or build a container without root? Podman is the way to go.


No true. Podman runs natively on a MAC, using a Linux VM for containers, just like Docker. `podman machine init` pulls down a VM, after which you can start running, developing, and building the same images that Docker and Kubernetes use.

Just `brew install podman`.

For Windows, Podman is available on many distributions in WSL2.


I agree, what's missing is a nice VM appliance for macOS and Windows.


This is what singularity did in the HPC world (amongst other handy features):

https://singularity.hpcng.org/


This might even be a good selling point - sharing a container host amongst multiple devs means that the hardware for devs can be lighter/cheaper.

Even for myself flying solo I can use my old desktop as a Podman server, conserving RAM/CPU in my development env. Sounds good to me.


> The biggest showstopper for podman is that it runs entirely in userspace on Linux.

Why do you believe that? Docker's "root by default" design decision is the bane of Docker. Podman is even described as Docker done right in that regard.


It doesn't do caching, which disqualifies it from many use cases unfortunately:

https://docs.podman.io/en/latest/markdown/podman-build.1.htm...

> --cache-from

> Images to utilize as potential cache sources. Podman does not currently support caching so this is a NOOP.


I use it on my Fedora dev machine and it's pretty good. Still wouldn't replace a mission critical machine with it, as it isn't the primary target for docker containers to run on and it can break more easily.


It will break from time to time. But so does Docker Desktop. Neither Docker nor Podman are suitable for mission critical stuff. Their market is entirely dev machines and devs can fix in on their own.


> Neither Docker nor Podman are suitable for mission critical stuff. Their market is entirely dev machines and devs can fix in on their own.

Pretty sure they're used for more than that.


You are using logic.

That's not how corporations work.

I work remotely for large corporation (over 100k employees) and it wastes on average an hour of my productivity every day on stupid stuff. For example my office PC becomes unavailable every time it gets an update, at least once a week. They force restart during working hours. If there is somebody in the office I can call them to reboot it, if not I have to drive there. Everybody has the same problem. Meetings are disrupted, plans are thrown in disarray, people are loosing sometimes entire day of work.

The problem has been known before covid and has not been solved.

Any normal logical person would throw resources into solving the problem, but the people responsible just say they are busy and why is that a big problem if you can just press reboot?


That's not how it works in my experience. If it costs more than 0 but less than 10k, the pencil pushers at procurement wont even answer your emails...


I think you don't understand how big company procurement work. Getting legal's and procurement's attention to look at this is more effort than its worth. The logistics of managing licenses, single sign-on, etc is a nightmare. Besides, running docker is already frowned upon by InfoSec and require special permission. It will never happen where I work. Not because of money, but because it's too much trouble.


> Do you really think that businesses are going to jeopardize the workflows of their $250k/year assets over a very core piece of software for $250/year?

Not just "think" - I know for a fact.

Finance refuses to spend money if there is a "free" alternative, and Architecture rejects all software that isn't OSS licensed without a lengthy review process. It would take us at least 3 months to get approvals and POs for all the devs, if it even got approved, but more likely it would be in "batches" of licenses, further delaying roll-out. So instead the devs are beginning to install Linux VMs to run Docker from, or looking at podman.

People forget that just because there's a "rational" decision, doesn't mean people (or businesses) will choose it. Businesses are run by humans, and humans are irrational and dumb. Path of least resistance wins.


Absolutely.

The pricing model for this is really stupid. A $21/mo subscription is a pain in the ass — they would be better off just selling it perpetual for $1000.

I ran a big enterprise shop for years. Nuisance licensing like this costs a fortune - I’d need to go do legal review, have it tracked for renewals and compliance, etc. Freemium product like this is always coupled with a stupid license enforcement audit that appears and tries to extort you. For a small quantity, overhead may be more than the product.

As an enterprise consumer, it makes me question the viability of the company. $250 a year is priced to allow unit managers to use P-Cards to avoid procurement processes. It’s too cheap to make meaningful amounts of money, so unless it’s a way to shift me to a more intelligent model, I’d have folks assigned to investigate alternatives.


I love the term “nuisance licensing”. Considering how everyone and their grandmother is switching to subscription models I wonder why it didn't come up earlier.


What companies are offering $250k/year for engineers?


TCO ain't paycheck offer

Salary + Taxes (Payroll, etc) + Fringe (Healthcare, etc) + Dev licenses + Training/conferences = paycheck * (n > 1.5)


When you add up salary + benefits + workplace amenities + taxes + software licenses and whatnot, you get there mighty quick.


I don't know what you mean by taxes, my question is about 250k base, excluding bonuses, stock, and excluding the supposed monetary value of benefits/training/travel/home office whatnot


The statement was that the engineer is a $250k asset to the company.

Rule of thumb TCO for headcount is 1.5-2x salary to account for taxes, Medicare, health insurance, equipment cost, licenses, office square footage, stock options, travel, etc.

So a $250k asset from a business perspective is typically someone that makes $125k-$165k.


In the US, companies are responsible for paying 50% of the medicare and social security taxes for each of their employees.


It seems like 200k+ is pretty typical for Engineers with at least some experience even in less hot markets like the Midwest. I know several developers in the Metro Detroit area making more than 200k base.


Are you talking about total compensation where you add base salary, payroll taxes paid by employer, health & benefits, 401K contribution, possible bonus & equity, etc?

I see $160K salary ceilings for general "senior engineers" for vast majority of non-FAANG companies in high COL East Coast city, so I'd imagine midwest is $25K less since housing is so much cheaper.

But maybe salaries are really exploding, and I just haven't been paying attention.


I meant base comp not TC. If you haven’t checked out the Team Blind app or https:://levels.FYI recently, the compensation right now for experienced developers is unreal.


In Germany this type of experience would be paid 50k. So the license fee will hit be costly here.


At least Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Microsoft.


Pretty much any company operating in a major US city.


I guess it depends on the enterprise. I can imagine the thoughts of certain managers: Recurring costs? Something that used to be free and now they want money? Pricing per user? More expensive than Office 365?


From my experience: Yes, they may jeopardize it.

If docker and containerization is not yet widely used in the company, a lot of decisionmakers will not buy it, because they did fine without it for decades ;)


That price is per person, not total. The highest total I've heard so far is going to cost that company $108k a month, for a development tool.

VCs are shooting themselves in the foot here: it is very obvious that we should never adopt any technical tool backed by VC, because they will eventually try to make us an offer we can't refuse and then go out of business shortly thereafter when their extortion attempt doesn't work.


> That price is per person, not total. The highest total I've heard so far is going to cost that company $108k a month, for a development tool.

Lol yes, I know. My point was the cost of meatware is 3 orders of magnitude greater than the software, and likely less at scale.

$100k/mo would mean 5,000 devs. I highly doubt a company with overheads near/in excess of a billion dollars/year is going to sweat a $1m expense for core infra like Docker.


I think you're correct about existing users at large corporations. Converting all those into paid accounts is a no-brainer.

However, this will have a massive change on the competitive landscape. For companies that haven't yet adopted Docker, this is a huge red checkmark. This change is going to spur development on open source alternatives like nothing else could.


Nah. We're not 250 people. We use docker, and we won't stop/switch because of it.

This is such a good problem to have. I would love to cut Docker Inc. a check.

And we've basically moved over to garden (a k8s dev env) anyway. But we still use docker plenty.


$21 / user / month - so if you have 100 engineers that's $2100 a month or $25k a year.

Still should be doable for most businesses that size but licensing costs can blow up when you start to have a lot of seats. An annoying thing about the company I work for is that they have a limited number of licenses for things like IDEs, so they ration them. And so I'll boot up an IDE for a language I work in less - like say, PyCharm - and it will stop working because my license got taken away and given to someone else. I'll have to request another one be given back to get working again, which is pretty annoying when I'm trying to get something done. I work mostly with Docker / Kubernetes so if I'm in a situation where my core tools are being constantly taken away, I'll be pretty miffed.

I agree that Docker has every right to charge big companies for this software. Just wanted to point out that the costs can be more than you'd expect.


Local dev environments are used because it's what people are used to, and they're low friction to start using. The problem is that they're actually quite difficult to maintain at scale. Large businesses spend a considerable amount of time debugging local developer environments. Cloud IDEs have been popping up and are finally to the point of being usable (and in some cases even better than a local dev env).

My company was already somewhat interested in checking out hosted IDEs, and today this pushed us to start some proof of concepts to move some teams over to github's codespaces.

So, yes, businesses will adjust their workflows to avoid the cost since many were already interested in improving their workflows and relieving some of the burden on their developer environment tooling teams.


> Do you really think that businesses are going to jeopardize the workflows of their $250k/year assets over a very core piece of software for $250/year?

YES! I've seen it. Stinginess at my shop regularly causes hours and hours of pricey engineering resources to address problems caused by underallocating cloud resources to the point things fail - or refusal to allow some cloud service because it will cost $100/month (despite saving 10s of thousands in eng resources)

It's crazy but I bet it happens many places.


That would be the wise thing to do, but I'm sure there are some ways companies will eff it up anyway. Survival of the fittest I guess.

Management may want some badge of honor for saving a budget line item. Or developers may want to embark on a new and interesting project and successfully convince management it's a good idea, who will agree for a wide range of reasons (not pissing off developers might be one of them).

Both will ignore the risk and considerable downsides. Happens all the time.


Have you ever worked at a large corporation?

I have, and let me tell you, they will spend dozens of hours and thousands of dollars to fight a purchase of $21. I'm really not joking.


That math changes a lot in companies that don’t sell tech as their profits margin aren’t as fat. It also changes when you have 1000s of developers.


>>>Do you really think that businesses are going to jeopardize the workflows of their $250k/year assets over a very core piece of software for $250/year?

Hahahahaha, yes, absolutely. Because if the wrong VP gets this in his head, it's not $250/year, it's "almost half a million dollars over 3 years" for the 500 employees or whatever. I've seen it happen.


I once got told my my manager to reduce the cost of my email inbox on the server and download it to my local machine.

This was email provided and owned by the very company I worked for, and it was costing enough for management to care.

Maybe enterprises have changed since then, but I wouldn’t be surprised if stuff like this does start asking questions as it’s a new cost on a budget.


(Big) Enterprises nowadays have mandatory backups for emails. So downloading e-mails on clients doesn't remove the need of storing on the server.


I work at a large company. I added a USE_PODMAN environment variable for devs to use within an hour of finding out about this

But maybe my company is too large; large enough companies can have smaller teams, other teams will probably go the licensing route


True. Absolutely. But I guarantee you that this headline means that even junior "devops" engineers will have workable alternatives by tomorrow, and can tell you how to implement them with little friction.


Yeah that's great in theory. In practice you have to go to the official route (tm). Here's some of my experiences:

1) Internship at a well known tech corporation. I was on a project that would accelerate the debugging and diagnostic of a machine the whole factory depended on; tl;dr I was making an app to replace an overgrown Excel sheet. To do that we used an opensource library but the catch was that the maintainer made its money by placing the documentation under a paywall. At some point the project was going well but the leftovers from Google Code could not do anymore. So it took two months (TWO MONTHS!) to do a $15 USD one time payment with the company's credit card. Apparently the process took longer due to the fact we had to go through PayPal.

2) Another multi billion corporation, less big but still multinational. They spent hours and lots of money on internal propaganda to promote their "core values"; which of course included "agility". We wanted to buy a commercial code analysis tool to save time during code reviews and increase code quality of a code base where ~30 devs worked. No brainier right? We had the R&D department's VP's OK to buy the damn thing and ask for forgiveness to the mother ship later. After 6 months our team leader was still receiving calls and and form to fill. "Do you really need this? Did you think about other products? Did you have the OK from this person thousand of miles away and this other person who speaks in a very broken English?" Using the company's internal organism and salary tables we estimated that during those six months they have wasted about 5 years of licensing in salary.


Which is why this shady tactic works time and again.


> $250k/year

fuck..i need to find a new job

Cacti 45 days ago [flagged] [–]

lol obviously you’ve never worked in a giant bureaucratic corporation.


Please don't post personal swipes or unsubstantive comments.

If you know more than other people, that's great, but then please share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. If you can't do that or don't want to, that's fine, but then please don't post.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...


Lol obviously you’ve never risen to a level of management in a giant corporation.

It’s ok. Just keep telling yourself you’re smarter than everyone else.


Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. Not cool.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


A company with 100 $250k/year engineers would be billed about $250k/year for this license. Any half competent manager is going to realize that money would be better spend on a single engineer focused on tooling, who can replace Docker Desktop in addition to working on other efficiency improvements.


> A company with 100 $250k/year engineers would be billed about $250k/year for this license

Would love to know how you arrived at this number.

The list price for 100 engineers on the most expensive plan would be $25k/year and I guarantee Docker will do volume discounts.

Additionally, the terms just say you need a paid plan, which presumably could be the cheapo $5/mo plan which would be $6k/year for 100 engineers.


Yes, you're correct, my numbers are completely wrong here. I'm unable the edit the post anymore, unfortunately.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: