>However, the reality is that CockroachDB is not yet at the levels of adoption where AWS would be interested. So why did Cockroach Labs make the change?<p>Because it's too late once they get to that stage. The licence needs to be changed ahead of time. Because companies generally try to plan ahead more than a few months into the future.<p>I was following along with you until this point, but now I feel like you're trying to hard to paint these companies in a negative light and not give any benefit of the doubt.<p>I use CockroachDB and I have looked into your database recently. If I recall, your database dashboard was in the enterprise version only. I may look at it again now. I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt (that you're not intentionally misrepresenting your competitors) even though you don't seem to be so charitable with your competitors.<p>Edit: Looks like dashboard is still proprietary. Also FYI, this page is unusable on my Pixel 2XL:<p><a href="https://www.yugabyte.com/platform/#ee-1" rel="nofollow">https://www.yugabyte.com/platform/#ee-1</a>
We currently use CockroachDB in production and this is definitely going to make us take a serious look at YugaByte. We love Cockroach, but not really being able to do a distributed backup / restore operation without paying a million dollars is really annoying.
So are they not worried AWS will offer yugabyte as a service and edge them out of their own market? Maybe AWS wouldn't because of Aurora. And I guess the other's aren't large enough to matter.
Great !<p><a href="https://blog.yugabyte.com/rise-of-globally-distributed-sql-databases-redefining-transactional-stores-for-cloud-native-era/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.yugabyte.com/rise-of-globally-distributed-sql-d...</a><p>I have found this article on their site to be useful.
The article compares different SQL databases under Monolithic SQL Vs NewSQL Vs Globally Distributed SQL databases