While Docker may be able to secure additional capital, it’s yet another company that finds itself in an ominous position after raising mounds of cash during the heady days earlier this decade. When Bearden joined in May, he became the fourth CEO and the third since 2017, replacing Steve Singh, a former senior executive at SAP. Docker’s founder Solomon Hykes left the company last year, and Mariana Tessel, the executive vice president of strategic development, departed in 2017 for Intuit.
Sure you can do a lot of things with Kubernetes. It’s great, but Cloud Foundry is designed to make “Happy developers,” as Comcast open-source senior director Nithya Ruff put it at the Cloud Foundry Summit.
Cloud Foundry’s audience, as Karl Isenberg, one of its developers, explained on StackOverflow, is “enterprise application devs who want to deploy 12-factor stateless apps using Heroku-style buildpacks.”
As part of the new relationship between the companies, Docker and Salesforce’s recently acquired MuleSoft division will cross-sell each other’s products when courting companies that are looking to modernize their software development organizations. The collaboration extends beyond that, however; the two companies will also do integration work aimed at helping mutual customers take advantage of their investments in one platform by extending capabilities to the other platform.
Original source: Salesforce makes undisclosed “strategic investment” in Docker, companies will cross-sell MuleSoft and Docker Enterprise
“Harbor is a privately hosted registry, which allows running either on-premises or in any of the major cloud vendors, making it a possibility for organizations that cannot use a public container registry or want to implement a multi-cloud strategy. Harbor started as an internal VMware project and became open source in 2016. Multiple partners, including companies like Pivotal and Rancher, either use Harbor for their container-based environment or work together with Harbor to give the possibility of running the project on their infrastructure. For instance, the Pivotal Container Service includes Harbor as its built-in container registry. For Rancher, Harbor is one of the packages you can deploy to provide a container registry. Moreover, Harbor gives the option to set up multiple instances of these registries on several of these platforms simultaneously and allows replication between them. Through the signing and vulnerability scanning capabilities provided by the project, it turns these into trusted resources.”
Original source: Cloud Native Computing Foundation Accepts Harbor Into CNCF Sandbox
“Steve Singh took over as CEO a year ago and has presided over a growing number of customers – more than 500 enterprise customers to date – and associated revenue. On that note, the company announced it expects to grow bookings beyond $100m in 2018.”
Original source: DockerCon coverage from 451: security focus
“Docker is focusing on enterprise buyers and legacy workloads.”
Original source: Thoughts on DockerCon 2018
“More than 50 percent of Docker’s customers are using Windows containers for modernizing legacy apps.”
Original source: Docker Enterprise Edition Offers Multicloud App Management
Original source: Docker seeks Golden State burnish for cloud container expansion
“What we’re seeing at companies like MetLife or Northern Trust is they’re taking their app and infrastructure management cost, and cutting it in half. Let’s say that you can cut 15 million dollars out of your app and infrastructure management cost, which by the way, some of our customers are at. That’s 50 million dollars you can go spend on innovation. That’s not going to the CEO and saying look, I need another hundred million dollars in my budget. That’s freeing up 50-100 million dollars of your existing budget.”
I assume that jump from $15m to $50m is a typo, or something.
Original source: Can IT finally deliver innovation without busting its own budget? Docker’s CEO says yes.
“To take advantage of this opportunity, we need a CTO by Steve’s side with decades of experience shipping and supporting software for the largest corporations in the world. So I now have a new role: to help find that ideal CTO, provide the occasional bit of advice, and get out of the team’s way as they continue to build a juggernaut of a business.”
Original source: Docker founder Solomon Hykes leaving company, cites need for enterprise-focused CTO
With DockerCon this week, there’s no end of Docker quotables and items. Here’s my collection
Once landed in an account, Docker usage grows their CEO says:
There has also been expansion within customers, with organizations that start with Docker expanding their usage on average by five times within six months
Way back in 2015, the (now annual?) DataDog study of Docker usage among their customers said that 2/3 of companies that try Docker adopt it. Which is all to say: once it gets in, it spreads.
A toolkit for putting together docker stacks:
In essence, Moby is the build system that creates Docker Community Edition, which is akin to Fedora, and Docker Enterprise is derived from Moby and is akin to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Link
People got all freaked out. I’d even say “freaked the fuck out.” Competitors, of course, gloated, if only in silence. Criticism of handling the announcement aside (ideally, you wouldn’t like to kick up a stink), I feel like it was more like a tempest in a teapot.
Docker momentum/penetration and types of applications/workloads
Global 2000 customers have somewhere on the order of thousands to tens of thousands of applications, and across these major firms, less than 5 percent of the applications have been containerized so far. While somewhere between 5 percent and 10 percent of the applications that are being containerized are net-new, microservices-style applications that everyone is talking about all the time, the other 90 percent to 95 percent are just lifting and shifting legacy applications from bare metal or virtual machines to containers. Link
VMware threat…or just legacy gobbling?
Docker bounces back and forth between “replacement for VMware” and “a different thing, so don’t worry about VMware.” In this round of Docker news, there’s been some strong pull towards the “replacement for VMware” camp. To be fair, it’s more like doing both:
In general, says Johnston, customers who move from bare metal or VMs to Docker containers can provision, scale, and deploy applications up to 75 percent faster, and those moving from bare metal to containers can save 50 percent on compute and those who are moving from VMs will save around 25 percent. Link
This might also come from the obvious move to start gobbling up legacy (more accurately “existing”) applications. Here, Docker had two customer reference:
Northern Trust, a leading international financial services company, experienced deployment times that were 4X faster and noted a 2X improvement in infrastructure utilization
And, Microsoft IT:
Microsoft is not only a partner in this program; their IT organization is also a beta customer. Microsoft IT increased app density 4X with zero impact to performance and were able to reduce their infrastructure costs by a third.
There was also a story of Visa using Docker:
Kocherlakota said Visa is aiming to move as many workloads at it can to the container model to help improve overall efficiency.
Other tech companies are often cautious about working with Docker. They’re not really certain about how it helps or threatens their position in the IT stack and, therefore, their ability to sell higher profit margin products and services. No one wants to become the x86 manufacturer of the cloud (read: low margin, commodity).
I’ve noticed this cautiousness slightly melting as more and more vendors are at least putting their stuff in Docker images and, on the public cloud front, supporting the use of Docker. My company, Pivotal, ingests Docker images.
A brief whack at why Microsoft cares, from Christopher Tozzi:
Although there remains work to do to get Docker on Windows ready for prime time, the platform will be important in helping Windows Server stay as nimble as Linux environments in hosting the workloads of the future…. Microsoft’s interest in Docker may seem strange. Microsoft already offers traditional virtual machine products, most notably Hyper-V. In some respects, Docker containers compete with virtual machine platforms…. But that’s not necessarily the case. Depending on how they’re used, containers can complement virtual machines, rather than replace them. If you use virtual machines to host the environment in which Docker runs, your Docker environment becomes more scalable and portable than it would be if it ran on bare metal. That’s likely the type of use case Microsoft envisions for containers on Windows.
More from Nick Martin on Microsoft and Docker.
Oracle becomes the latest enterprise IT vendor to jump on the Docker container bandwagon as it seeks to expand its reach in the public cloud market. Among the container-based application, middleware and development tools made available on the container platform are Oracle’s MySQL database and its WebLogic server. Those tools are in addition to the more than 100 images of Oracle products already available on Docker Hub, its cloud-based image registry.
So, what’s going on here? Staking a claim on The New Stack
I’m often asked to explain all the various cloud stacks, to help Pivotal buyers sort out what CaaS, PaaS, cloud-native, and “cloud strategy” means. They’re trying to figure out their planning for building out new IT, for “doing DevOps.” It’s a mess out there w/r/t to figuring all this out if you’re not a vendor or analyst who’s steeped in this shoggoth every day.
In all the Docker, container, and cloud-native wars, the revenue battle for vendors is mostly about two things:
- The pool of money in simply migrating the VMware workload to a new, more efficient layer, hence the ongoing attention to “the VMware threat” that Docker poses). I’m not sure how big this market is because, as a disruptive shift (cf. Linux vs. UNIX vs. Windows vs. z) part of it is reducing the overall spend through lower prices and more efficient usage. But, the existing virtualization market is best described as “fucking huge.”
- Fighting over who “owns” (and therefore collects the most profit from) the stack that companies are using to build and run their software. By my estimate, this is something like around a $20-25bn market in the future. You can see a Spanish Civil War like precursor going on in the Java application server market; it’s spreading to a “World War” with respect to all custom software stacks.
On that second point, here’s my latest attempt to describe how things are shaking out category/definition wise:
Of all the SPI cloud categories, PaaS is the most problematic place as all us vendors hate the PaaS term and are trying to re-define what it means. I would break PaaS into two categories currently: (1.) container orchestration, and, (2.) cloud platform.
Container orchestration takes an IaaS and manages the installation and configuration of container images on your new cloud. By “images” here, I mean that you’ve chosen to put your software (probably custom written software, not packaged software) into containers (or the delegated way we do it with buildpacks in CF), specified how all the different nodes are wired together with all the ACLs and configuration, and then given it over to the orchestration software to deploy those containers, set the configuration, and do the ongoing health-checks/remediation.
Ideally, the orchestration platform should also have “day 2” tools to help you monitor and manager (“fix”) problems that happen in production. I assume things like kubernetes, the Docker/Moby constellation of things, Mesosphere, etc. fit here.
People are obsessed with container orchestration now and it’s pretty much all anyone talks about. I think all this is what’s becoming known as “CaaS” – Containers as a Service.
(On this next section, I’m extremely monetarily biased, of course:) A cloud platform either has or depends on an orchestration layer, but adds in integrated middle-ware, ALM tools (from basics like “cf push”, and an overall programming and deployment model with all the tools and enforcements. Heroku is the classic example here in public cloud, and now Cloud Foundry (CF) has taken over this model in public and private cloud, the second (it seems) where most of the usage and money is, at least in the enterprise space. I’d argue, that CF is the enterprise market-leader (by revenue at least, but increasingly penetration in the F500 – while Pivotal has impressive numbers, throw in the other CF distros and it’s even larger, no doubt); at the very least, “the highest growth and in enterprise production usage.” That all depends how you slice it, and of course my slicing favors me.
A cloud platform “pulls together” everything into a fully working “cloud” that deploy and provisions the servers, builds/maintains/deploys the containers, takes care of your networking configuration and concerns (inc. firewalls, etc.), and configs/manages all the middleware needed (e.g. “I want a database” means you just ask for it, instead of having to configure it and make container images of it and specify how it all works together).
The end goal of a cloud platform is the original end-goal of a PaaS: developers don’t have to “setup” any of the infrastructure or, really, middleware (databases, queues, etc.) that they use: they just write the “business logic” of their applications.
All this standardization is technically “restrictive” (developers can’t just install anything they download off the Internet, it has to be integrated into the platform). This is why we often call this model “opinionated,” but it follows the same contract/promises model that Google SREs follow: we promise we can support your applications in production if you use only the things we support, otherwise it’s all on you.
However, the benefit of such opinions is a huge jump in productivity as we see at all our customers: one Pivotal customer manages 1,000+ applications (all angles toward very frequent, DevOps-style releases for fast feedback loops and all that small batch stuff) with just 4 PCF operations staff, etc.
Our DIY white paper makes the case that snow-flaking this all out is a bad idea. At the very least, if you build your own platform, you should try to just have one used organization wide.
In comparing CaaS and cloud platform, the key distinction to me is that a cloud platform bundles and integrates together all your middleware and “services” frameworks. For example, if you want to do microservices with all the bulk-heads and such, that functionality should be built into the cloud platform – you should have to go read-up how to set most of that up. PCF, of course, has Spring Cloud and more for that. All of the systems management tools (thing used in production to detect and fix problems) should also be built in, or the cloud platform should be instrumented so deeply that third party tools can do the managing as well.
Now, these two categories are likely to converge, and then the discussion will just be which cloud platforms are more featureful and better. It’ll be like battling Java application servers.
I haven’t made one of my own “burger” stacks of all this in a long time, but I think (again, highly biased) the ones we use for PCF are pretty good:
- A simple, cartoon one.
- More detailed stack, emphasizing “the value line,” i.e., “all things below this line have no differentiating business value and you should therefore buy instead of build them.”
- A pretty good, fancy-pants one.
- Some general analysis of Docker being used for mixed workloads and “hybrid cloud,” from Rhett Dillingham at Moor Insights & Strategy.
- As a reminder, 451’s container market-sizing: Container market to be $2.7B by 2020, from $762m in 2016.
- And, Microsoft’s purchase of Deis recently is another good example of stuff going on in this space.
In case you don’t know, working at Pivotal, I obviously have a stake in how all this turns out, so I’m biased on multiple angles of the above whether I want to be or not.
The Docker forking hoopla is providing an interesting example, in realtime, of how open communities figure out monetization.
#RealTalk: Open communities are not immune to C.R.E.A.M.
One of the most important decisions an open source community makes is where and how it will make money. I always liked Eclipse’s take because they’re mega clear on this topic; the ASF plays this goofy game where they try really hard to pretend they don’t need to answer the question, which itself is an answer, resulting in only the occasional quagmire; Linux has a weird situation where RedHat figured out This One Cool Trick to circumvent the anti-commercial leanings of the GPL; MySQL has a weird dual licensing model that I still don’t fully grasp the strategic implications of; RIP Sun.
The role of standards plays another defining role when it comes to monetization. Think of Java/J(2)EE, vs .Net, vs PHP (a standard-less standard?), vs HTML and WS-*. vs, the IETF/ISOC RFC-scape that defines how the internet works. While not always, by far, standards are often used tactically to lesson the commercial value (or zero it out completely) of any given component “lower” in the stack, pushing the money “up” the stack to the software that implements, uses, or manages the standard. Think of how HMTL itself is “of no value” (and was strategically pushed that way early on), but that the entire SaaS market is something like a $37.7bn market, part of the overall $90.3bn that, arguably, uses HTMLas one of the core technologies in the stack, at the UI layer, (along with native mobile apps. now).
The dynamics of how open source, standards, and the closed source around it are defined and who “controls” them are one of the key strategic processes in infrastructure software.
The Docker ecosystem is sorting out monetization
Right now, you can see this process in action in the Docker ecosystem. Product management decisions at Docker, Inc. are forcing the community to wrestle with how ecosystem members will make money, including Docker Inc. itself.
By “ecosystem,” I mean “all the people and companies that are involved in coding up Docker and/or selling Docker-based products and services.” Actual end-users play a role, of course, but historically don’t have as much power as we’d like at this stage of an open communities formation.
End-users have to vote with their feet and, if they have one, wallets – whether wearing expensive loafers (enterprise) or cracked sandals (paying with nothing but the pride of ubiquity) – which, by definition, is hard to do until a monetization strategy is figured out, or completely lumped all together.
Looking just at the “vendors,” then, each ecosystem member is trying to define which layers of the “stack”‘will be open, and thus, free, and which layers will be closed, and thus, charged for. Intermixed with this line drawing is determining who has control over features and standards (at which level) and, as a result, the creation of viable business models around Docker.
Naturally, Docker, Inc. wants as big slice of that pie as possible. The creator of any open technology has to spend a lot of nail-biting time essentially deciding how much money and market-share it wants to give up to others, even competitors. “What’s in it for me?” other vendors in the ecosystem are asking…and Docker Inc.’s answer is usually either some strategic shoe-gazing or a pretty straight forwardly the reply “less than you’d like.”
As a side note, while I don’t follow Docker, Inc. as an analyst any more (so I’m not mega up-to-date), it seems like the company consistently puts the end-users first. They’re looking to play the Tron role in this ecosystem most valiantly. This role doesn’t, really, conflict at all with elbowing for the biggest slice of the pie.
Similar to Docker Inc’s incentives to maintain as much control as possible, the “not-Docker, Inc.” members of the ecosystem want to commoditize/open the lower levels of the stack (the “core”), and leave the upper layers as the point of commoditization. This is the easiest, probably most consistently successful business model for infrastructure software: sell proprietary software that manages the “lower,” usually low cost to free, layers in the stack. From this perspective, not-Docker, Inc. members want to fence in the core Docker engine and app packaging scheme as the “atomic unit” of the Docker ecosystem. Then, the not-Docker, Inc.’s want to keep the management layer above that atomic unit for themselves to commercialize (here “orchestration,” configuration management, and the usual systems management stuff) . But, of course, Docker Inc. is all like “nope! That’s my bag o’ cash.”
And while I personally consider the orchestration layer the key to the container paradigm, the right approach here is to keep the orchestration separate from the core container runtime standardization. This avoids conflicts between different layers of the container runtime: we can agree on the common container package format, transport, and execution model without limiting choice between e.g. Kubernetes, Mesos, Swarm.
We saw similar dynamics – though by no means open source – in the virtualization market. VMware started with the atomic unit of the hypervisor (remember when we were obsessed with that component in the stack and people used that word a lot?), allowing the ecosystem to build out management on-top of that “lower” unit.
Then, as VMware looked to grow it’s TAM, revenue, and, thus, share price and market-cap, it expanded upward into management. At this point, VMware is a, more or less, the complete suite (or “solution” as we used to call it) of software you need for virtualization. E.g., they use phrases like “Software Defined Datacenter” rather than “virtualization,” indicative of the intended full-scope of their product strategy. (I’m no storage expert, but I think storage and maybe networking?is the last thing VMware hasn’t “won” hands down.)
“What, you don’t like money?”
All of this is important because over the next 10-15 years, we’re talking about a lot of money. The market window for “virtualization” is open and wildcatters are sniffing on the wafting smell the money flitting through. Well, unless AWS and Azure just snatches it all up, or the likes of Google decides to zero the market.
We used to debate the VMware to Docker Inc. comparison and competitive angle a lot. There was some odious reaction to the idea that Docker Inc. was all about slipping in a taking over VMware’s C.R.E.A.M. At one point, that was plausible from a criss-cross applesauce state of the market, but now it’s pretty clear that, at least from an i-banker spreadsheet’s perspective, VMware’s TAM is the number your doinking around with.
Figuring out that TAM and market size gives you a model for any given ecosystem member’s potential take over the next 10 years. That’s a tricky exercise, though, because the technology stack and market are being re-defined. You’ve got the core virtualization and container technology, then the management layer, and depending on if you’re one of the mega-tech vendors that does software and hardware, you’ve got actual server, storage, and networking revenue that’s dragged by new spend on “containers,” and then you’ve got the bogie of whatever the “PaaS-that-we-shall-not-call-PaaS” market becomes (disclaimer: that’s the one I work in, care a great deal about, am heavily incentivized to see win, and am rooting for – roll in the bias droids!).
I skipped figuring out the market size last year when I tried to round-up the Docker market. Needless to say, I’d describe it as “fucking-big-so-stop-asking-questions-and-ride-the-God-damn-rocket.”
Looking at it from a “that giant sucking sound” perspective, most all of the members in the Docker ecosystem will be in a zero-sum position if Docker Inc moves, and wins, the upper management layers. Hence, you see them fighting tooth-and-nail to make sure Docker Inc is, from their perspective, kept in their place.