TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

RethinkDB: why we failed (2017)

362 点作者 anhldbk大约 4 年前

31 条评论

jandrewrogers大约 4 年前
Database startups suffer from an extreme case of an important truism in startups generally: the product you think you are selling is not the product the customer thinks they are buying. No one buys a database <i>per se</i>, they are just a means to some other end.<p>People that love database technology — that would be me — tend to start database companies. It is very difficult to sell a database. It is much, much easier to sell a compelling solution to a somewhat boring but very valuable business problem that just happens to require an amazing database capability behind it. That’s your moat, the customer doesn’t actually care that there is an amazing database engine behind it but it makes it difficult for competitors to replicate.<p>Filed under “lessons I learned the hard way”.
评论 #26447613 未加载
评论 #26446621 未加载
评论 #26445225 未加载
评论 #26445898 未加载
评论 #26445504 未加载
评论 #26446654 未加载
评论 #26447472 未加载
评论 #26445890 未加载
评论 #26456168 未加载
评论 #26444356 未加载
abraxas大约 4 年前
This is akin to everyone’s dream to start a cozy, atmospheric coffee shop. These types of coffee bars fold very quickly or at best give founders years of servitude below minimum wage. The reason is that the type of behaviour this kind of establishment encourages - lounging, book reading, laptop work is exactly the opposite of the quick serve model that is conducive to high revenue. The customer loves this model, the owner hates it.<p>Analogous to it, the nosql DB market is the exact wrong market to enter. Large companies willing to pay big bucks for enterprise features will pay established vendors for the stodgy but battle tested stuff like Oracle or DB2. The hipster startup market pays nobody for anything as there is a myriad of free choices in every common flavour and the few that will pay will mostly do so to purchase managed hosting. And that’s only if their PoC built on your new and untrusted database ever makes it to production. And then it’s probably your cheapest tier. Don’t be selling to paupers!
评论 #26447585 未加载
评论 #26446472 未加载
评论 #26448852 未加载
nonpolitic大约 4 年前
&gt; Developers love building developer tools, often for free. So while there is massive demand, the supply vastly outstrips it.<p>This is key, and plays out over and over again in different forms. There are no points for difficulty, only supply and demand. PG puts this well [1]:<p>&gt; That&#x27;s the essence of a startup: having brilliant people do work that&#x27;s beneath them. Big companies try to hire the right person for the job. Startups win because they don&#x27;t—because they take people so smart that they would in a big company be doing &quot;research,&quot; and set them to work instead on problems of the most immediate and mundane sort. Think Einstein designing refrigerators.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;bronze.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;bronze.html</a>
评论 #26448323 未加载
评论 #26445455 未加载
jwr大约 4 年前
As someone using RethinkDB in production for the last 6 years or so: I am really disappointed by how software development world is dominated by fashions and fads.<p>RethinkDB was done really, really well. It is one of the very few distributed databases that went through Jepsen relatively unscathed and delivered on promises made. Development was done in the public, questions were asked through StackOverflow. You interacted with competent, skillful and experienced developers.<p>And yet MongoDB was the latest fashion fad, end even though it did NOT deliver on the promises, it was the hot-database-du-jour that kids used.<p>The article is mostly about the business model, and I also always thought they would have a hard time making money on the database. But I think they would have had a much better shot if it became more popular. It didn&#x27;t, which accelerated the company&#x27;s demise.<p>EDIT: I just realized that I wrote about RethinkDB in the past tense, even though it very much exists as I write it. In fact I run my business on it. But because it fell out of favor, when it was open-sourced, it failed to pick up momentum, and it now seems unlikely that it will.<p>Which is why I&#x27;m working on switching to FoundationDB, and I&#x27;m slightly worried that it will suffer the same fate: it is excellent technically (the best transactional guarantees in a distributed database you can get), but difficult to understand and not very user-friendly. It&#x27;s not the &quot;node.js database for everyone&quot;. The only reason I&#x27;m considering it is because Apple uses and develops it, which gives me hope for longer-term maintenance.<p>Going back to fashions — you can have a product which excels technically, but if it&#x27;s out of fashion, it might as well not exist.<p>I think we would all be better off if we stopped trying to always pick The One True Database, The One True Programming Language, etc — and instead accepted that there might be multiple tools, each specialized for certain kinds of tasks.
评论 #26450927 未加载
评论 #26448665 未加载
评论 #26448133 未加载
评论 #26448464 未加载
plorkyeran大约 4 年前
With four years of hindsight, the estimate of DBaaS and managed database hosting companies of being &lt;10M revenue stood out at me. MongoDB Atlas hit $85M revenue in Q4 2020 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fool.com&#x2F;earnings&#x2F;call-transcripts&#x2F;2021&#x2F;03&#x2F;10&#x2F;mongodb-inc-mdb-q4-2021-earnings-call-transcript&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fool.com&#x2F;earnings&#x2F;call-transcripts&#x2F;2021&#x2F;03&#x2F;10&#x2F;mo...</a>), which means that assuming RethinkDB&#x27;s estimates were correct, the market they wrote off as too small was actually about to explode into something much larger.<p>That&#x27;s not to say that they would have succeeded if they&#x27;d gone after that though; instead we might have a blog post about how they correctly predicted where the market would go and simply ran out of money before the market got there.
评论 #26444163 未加载
评论 #26444094 未加载
nathcd大约 4 年前
(2017)<p>There was a large discussion (948 points, 267 comments) at the time: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13421608" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13421608</a>
nithinkashyapn大约 4 年前
Recent developments - RethinkDB is back and is being backed by the Linux Foundation
评论 #26444010 未加载
geophile大约 4 年前
So much of this is familiar. I was at two database startups.<p>The first one, an object-oriented database company (last 80s, early 90s) suffered from an extreme case of misperceived markets, due to the occasionally intentional blurring of the lines between a &quot;database system&quot; (which means SQL to nearly everyone, and we didn&#x27;t to SQL), and a persistent storage class added to C&#x2F;C++ (and later Smalltalk and Java).<p>The second one (mid 2000s) was a neat physical storage trick, which should have been a feature of a database system, not an excuse for building a new one. My bad for missing this, but I really, really liked the physical storage ideas, so I joined.<p>Building and selling new database technology is extremely difficult. There are successful, huge, entrenched companies. There is, therefore, no good reason for anyone to gamble on your new technology. Your only chance is to convince the architecture astronauts at some prospect that they just have to have your product, but the odds of such a decision sticking all the way through the delivery of their product is extremely low, no matter how good your technology is.
评论 #26451373 未加载
toolslive大约 4 年前
I distinctly remember their creative hiring tactics: They anonymously floated mysterious puzzles across the web. The solution was a domain name which had a static website yielding an email address. If you sent a email to that address they immediately asked you if you were interested in working for them. I know, because I solved one (The lure to solve the mystery was just too tempting to resist)
评论 #26444830 未加载
评论 #26448116 未加载
nojvek大约 4 年前
RethinkDB was great. They had better tech than mongodb. It was fast and consistent, rql was expressive and easy to lean. Sharding and replicas was easy.<p>I wish they didn’t run out of money and give up. In many ways startups feel like you gotta be a cockroach. The goal is to not die and live long enough to be profitable where you control your own destiny.<p>Like mongo atlas, rethinkdb’s hosted solution (horizon I think) could have easily taken off.<p>Like Firebase’s Firestore, it could have been quite successful.
k__大约 4 年前
I was baffled when they went down.<p>MongoDB and ArangoDB did well so there seems to be a valid case for new databases. Rethink was loved by HN commenters. I used it in a startup I was working at in 2015-2017 and it was a pleasure.
billconan大约 4 年前
is the entire developer tool market bad, or just the db sector is bad?<p>developer tool market seems to be the only one I&#x27;m familiar with as an engineer. If I were to start a business, I will probably also do something for this market.
评论 #26444037 未加载
评论 #26443946 未加载
评论 #26445840 未加载
评论 #26444056 未加载
评论 #26445985 未加载
评论 #26444060 未加载
评论 #26444025 未加载
评论 #26445852 未加载
评论 #26444495 未加载
评论 #26443938 未加载
评论 #26444129 未加载
评论 #26447785 未加载
ospider大约 4 年前
This is gold. I have seen a lot of &quot;cool&quot; startups that failed, and &quot;not-so-cool&quot; startups which do the dirty work for their customers so that their customer don&#x27;t have to succeeded.
supermatt大约 4 年前
I was under the impression that rethink db was not open source (until after it “failed”).<p>That’s not a reason for failure, of course, but I have mentioned before that we (as in developers) often only choose things with permissive licenses, often to the detriment of the products we “support” (see the recent elastic drama, where we blamed elastic being forked by Amazon for being too permissive!).
评论 #26447272 未加载
haolez大约 4 年前
&quot;Read The Economist religiously. It will make you better faster.&quot;<p>Huh?
评论 #26444665 未加载
评论 #26444587 未加载
wideareanetwork大约 4 年前
I thought they failed cause unbelievably powerful databases are available totally free.<p>What more reason is needed?
评论 #26444062 未加载
zackmorris大约 4 年前
I had such high hopes for RethinkDB as a free and open source alternative to Firebase. FB was a great tool, but was never the same after getting purchased by Google (I quit following its progress shortly thereafter).<p>This article has less to do with databases or open source software than it does with the fundamentally misaligned incentives of egalitarianism and capitalism.<p>I wish there was a social open source license that said &quot;you can use this indefinitely as long as you pay us something&quot;. The price would be up to the user but the generally accepted polite minimum would be at least a penny ($0.01).<p>Then businesses could publicly display their level of support (both initially and yearly) for the software they use, to attract customers. They could also be audited by the IRS, so a lack of patronage could correlate to a lack of equality and maybe even reveal corruption and other malfeasance. At the very least it would reveal a lack of internal controls.<p>This could work kind of like UBI for open source. And I&#x27;m definitely not the only one who has ever thought about this. But there is just so much free capital floating around right now that it&#x27;s a great time to be thinking about how to reform the paradigms that we all depend on.
carlsborg大约 4 年前
&gt; To see how this plays out for other companies consider MongoDB (valued at roughly $1.6B with ~700 employees),<p>Maybe another, important, lesson the RethinkDB team left out was: raise more capital than you need, and go public fast.<p>Two years later, MongoDB the company is now valued at $19.491B. Like many other public tech companies, it is yet to turn a single profitable quarter, and is not expected to in the next few years.<p>Annual YoY revenue growth is flat too at around $500m. Equity is negative.<p>Perhaps because the market thinks useful product companies will be valuable vs. the US dollar in the future. And its a vital part of many companies infrastructure these days, without much of a solid enterprise alternative.
评论 #26451054 未加载
cubicmeter大约 4 年前
You can compare selling a database to selling git. Nobody is selling git itself, they sell the hosting around the tech, or create a dev workflow (gitlab) that uses git at its core.<p>If anyone tried to sell git itself it would be impossible. I never used mongodb for reasons listed in the article. But there is free and open source and resilient postgres.<p>the companies who succeeded around git did not build git. it would be a tough thing to develop both git and the hosting &#x2F; workflow business around it.<p>so I guess the lesson to learn is don&#x27;t try to build extremely sophisticated software as a startup where there are already good enough open source alternatives.
spamalot159大约 4 年前
Really good write up. If you&#x27;ve ever listened to an episode of &quot;How I Built This&quot; from NPR, this is the opposite of that. But still equally informative and useful.
johbjo大约 4 年前
If the customer relationship is sticky and product&#x2F;technology improves over time, it is more important to be quick than &quot;mature&quot; or &quot;feature complete&quot;. When the technology matures (roughly simultaneously for all competitors), the size of the user base is what matters.
bilater大约 4 年前
Why is a 2017 article trending? Also isn&#x27;t this the dude who had that &#x27;this sounds like a parody but is actually how I hire engineers&#x27; article?
NetOpWibby大约 4 年前
RDB is fantastic, I’m using it today.
评论 #26445284 未加载
skyzadev大约 4 年前
So, is the Economist any good? I&#x27;m thinking HN is a better source and it&#x27;s free.
roenxi大约 4 年前
The unspoken alternative in articles like this is that they don&#x27;t know why they failed, or their view of the market is just not clear enough to form a judgement.<p>The industry is still in an awkward position where software deals in &#x27;intellectual property&#x27;, but the concept was never really developed with an understanding of whatever it is that software is. Something like PostgreSQL for example isn&#x27;t exactly a product, a service or a novel idea. Most of its consumers don&#x27;t use most of its features. It is almost a perspective on a problem and some codified good design ideas.<p>It isn&#x27;t obvious if selling a perspective is profitable. There are a lot of winners in software that don&#x27;t actually sell software. Eg, Facebook&#x2F;Google sells eyeballs, Amazon sells infrastructure, Apple sells iPhones.<p>MongoDB.Inc probably doesn&#x27;t sell &#x27;a database&#x27; if the details of their customer relationships were open for inspection.
评论 #26444558 未加载
gigatexal大约 4 年前
What’s with all of this seemingly whitewashing of history? Slava himself described why it failed. I mean as founder you have to be laser focused. Yet he was too busy trying to win over his “hot new employee” than focusing on the database.<p>There is an archive of his deleted tweets here where he describes it: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gist.github.com&#x2F;travisbrown&#x2F;059310042193a2e143408b05bdc2278d" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gist.github.com&#x2F;travisbrown&#x2F;059310042193a2e143408b05...</a><p>And then there was an article that seems to be gone from the web (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20201130215752&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;threader.app&#x2F;thread&#x2F;1124414461014462464" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20201130215752&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;threader....</a>). It stands to reason this huge distraction played a role in the mismanagement of the database and why it ultimately didn’t succeed.
评论 #26445938 未加载
评论 #26444662 未加载
评论 #26445434 未加载
评论 #26444905 未加载
评论 #26444908 未加载
ianwalter大约 4 年前
&gt; People wanted RethinkDB to be fast on workloads they actually tried, rather than “real world” workloads we suggested<p>Uh no, It was slow on real world workloads, you just don&#x27;t want to admit it.
评论 #26444561 未加载
akulkarni大约 4 年前
<p><pre><code> Read The Economist religiously. It will make you better faster. </code></pre> You can read the Economist if you&#x27;d like, but it won&#x27;t make you a better entrepreneur. Instead, find people who are smarter than you (in your area), do everything you can to convince them to spare you some of their time, and then be a humble (but discerning) sponge of information.<p>The challenge in fast changing markets is that the best information isn&#x27;t written down anywhere (and especially not in magazines!), but that it&#x27;s locked inside people&#x27;s heads.<p>At least, this is what has worked for me (TimescaleDB founder)!
评论 #26444165 未加载
评论 #26444301 未加载
评论 #26444273 未加载
评论 #26444459 未加载
评论 #26446793 未加载
评论 #26444388 未加载
williamstein大约 4 年前
2017
the_linux_lich大约 4 年前
They failed because they focused on marketing features instead of essential ones like data compression.
cryptica大约 4 年前
It failed because megacorps didn&#x27;t like the idea of a database which could allow startups to scale from zero to hundreds of millions of users out of the box. Anyone who&#x27;s had any affiliation with projects which aim for &#x27;out of the box&#x27; scalability will know that these projects are actively suppressed and starved of funding and customers by corporate interests.