5 ms·

Docker October 2022 Pricing Change FAQ

59 points by wiennat 4y ago

chtitux 4y ago
With Pro accounts limited to 100 users, I believe this is a good opportunity to recall [0], that lists businesses that overprice SSO [0] https://sso.tax/ https://sso.tax/
- merb 4y ago
  The list misses adobe…
- WhatsName 4y ago
  SSO as a requirement is a reliable way to differenciate small business/ hobbist from commercial usage of your product. I really don't get at whom this SSO-tax hate is directed at?
  - xiwenc 4y ago
    SSO is becoming a necessity for small businesses also. If you are involved in audits, you will understand how valuable it is.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      Unrelated to SSO, I’m involved in audits that regularly seek changes which don’t improve safety or security but which often help the bottom line of big providers. If you want a product to succeed without natural growth, get an an auditor to require it. It’s selling your soul and those being audited will hate you, but it’s very lucrative.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      > you will understand how valuable it is. Sounds like it’s worth the cost then.
      - vetinari 4y ago
        No. If you gatekeep SSO, your product is not even considered. There are enough alternatives, so it is not a problem.
        Spivak 4y ago
        I find it funny that people say things like this, because not only is it demonstrably not true looking at different product segments, but even if it was you're basically admitting to self-selecting as a customer who would never have paid in the first place and so companies are overjoyed that you're not using them. "I would have paid you if you gave me X for free" is the biggest lie.
        vetinari 4y ago
        It is more nuanced like that. If you do not have any other value proposition for paid tiers, you might keep telling yourself that, it is your sales model after all.
        Spivak 4y ago
        sl;kfjasdf;lkasjdefk Okay, look. There's two universes here. Universe A is where split up the features of our product into tiers based on "value" -- some arbitrary groups based on how useful we think each feature is, how expensive they are, how long they took to develop, estimated person-hours saved, whatever. Sweet, it feels right. Now the free/low cost tiers are genuinely less useful than the higher tiers. Pay more for more. SSO probably still lives at the mid or enterprise tier for no other reason that it's a PITA, is the cause of like 20% of support requests, and our SSO vendor charges us per month per SSO connection. Universe B is where the free/low cost tiers have every feature except for specifically the features and increased usage limits that get SMBs and Enterprise to pay us. Both on the sales side and the user side I want to live in Universe B. There is no magic universe where "just increase your value proposition to Enterprise customers" -- it's the same product just carved up differently and non-enterprise customers lose in Universe A.
    - _ea1k 4y ago
      This is less true in places where auditors don't understand sso.
  - ivan_gammel 4y ago
    SSO is not contributing to the core product USP and is pure money extraction mechanism. If company can add enough value on enterprise plan, they could easily drop SSO on less expensive tier. If company cannot add enough value to the core product, they use SSO and reachable customer support to justify more expensive subscription. This may deincentivize customers to buy more or reduce overall security if customer fails to implement processes for standalone login and manual provisioning of accounts.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      > and is pure money extraction mechanism Yes, you act like this is a bad thing. You hold back and charge for the features customers want enough to pay for. You’ve never noticed that whenever there’s a Free/Pro of an app the one feature you need is always on the Pro version? > add enough value on enterprise plan, they could easily drop SSO That really isn’t how it works. You find some small set of features that enterprises must have like SSO, auditing, and compliance and charge them out the ass for it. This is where the real money for every B2B SaaS comes from and subsidizes the low cost tiers which they hope will translate to an enterprise sale when you ask for it at work.
      - eurasiantiger 4y ago
        The problem is that often the pro features are very nearly essential, like having more than one door in a car.
    - nrb 4y ago
      It makes more sense to them to add that other value to the non-enterprise plans or licensing to attract more users, then charge the businesses that MUST have the SSO or audit functionality, because they know enterprise will pay it without blinking an eye.
      - ivan_gammel 4y ago
        It is a common misconception that SSO is useful only on enterprise scale and that companies where SSO and provisioning is crucial for security have huge IT budgets. Any scale-up still on the way to profitability needs it at few hundreds of employees and it’s really hard to justify 100k budget for it. Couple junior admins for provisioning and accepted and misunderstood risk of credentials explosion look more attractive than tripling the bills for every subscription. Who suffers? Customer who is exposed to cybersecurity risks.
  - danielheath 4y ago
    The feature is implemented. I'd prefer to use it. It would cost them nothing to let me do so. Yet, I can't, because then big corporates wouldn't be milked for as much cash. I accept this as just another one of those inefficiencies of market capitalism, but it's still a little irksome.
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      > The feature is implemented. I'd prefer to use it. It would cost them nothing to let me do so. The other way to view it is, by withholding a nonessential feature, Docker gets big customers to subsidize all the little guys, and their product is more accessible overall.
    - Anon1096 4y ago
      You can say that about any paid feature of literally any b2b software ever.
- metadat 4y ago
  Discussed 5 months ago: The SSO Wall of Shame https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31175300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31175300 (106 points, 41 comments)
KronisLV 4y ago
For those that don't necessarily want to pay for Docker and primarily want to host/build/use container images, going for self-hosted Nexus can be a more cost effective solution, as I did for my own needs: https://blog.kronis.dev/tutorials/moving-from-gitlab-registry-to-sonatype-nexus https://blog.kronis.dev/tutorials/moving-from-gitlab-registr... (albeit in my case I migrated over from GitLab Registry and now having a proxy registry as well is just an added boon) At this point, even not signing into Docker Hub is perfectly passable, because none of my CI servers ever hit the rate limits, since Nexus can act as a caching proxy, or I can just put my own images in it. It surprises me that this isn't the de-facto way of doing things, since currently it seems like Docker Hub has to deal with a needlessly large amount of network traffic and also countless dead/abandoned images stored in it (and thus, wasted $$$). I also use a pretty simple setup of Gitea and Drone CI for building my images from a Git repo, which works rather nicely, but perhaps that's besides the point (though you can read more about it on my blog). Of course, I won't say that building most/all of your own container images is necessarily something that you should always do. That said, personally, I decided to focus on Ubuntu as a common base image for my own needs and install software that I need (Node, Python, JDK, .NET, Ruby and so on) inside of it through apt, as well as install updates during build time. This lead to my own container images with common tools across the board, common shared layers (e.g. fewer layers to pull if a similar image is already on the server/locally), albeit with fewer space optimizations and some caveats, about which you can read in another article of mine: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/using-ubuntu-as-the-base-for-all-of-my-containers https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/using-ubuntu-as-the-base-fo... Overall, it's been a pretty reasonable experience, though I also understand why folks whose time is 10x more valuable than mine might prefer to throw money at someone, or go for images that have a bit more vendor dark magic in them (e.g. installing JDK through apt vs doing so in alternative ways that save on space). As for Docker Desktop, if you want something like it, Rancher Desktop aims to be a passable alternative, though with a slightly different focus: https://rancherdesktop.io/ https://rancherdesktop.io/ Personally, I don't think that they'll quite succeed anytime soon, because they have a long road ahead of them, much like Podman did (and still has, for some workloads), but it's definitely a promising alternative, given what else the corporation behind it has been capable of (Rancher, RKE and K3s come to mind).
- 4y ago
skywhopper 4y ago
This is a ~15-30% increase. Truly wild. Meanwhile I can’t remember the last time one of the new features made my life easier.
- lma21 4y ago
  If i may ask, why do you keep using Docker for Teams/Business? what stopped you from moving to any of the alternatives?
  - mrud 4y ago
    For us it is docker desktop. Developers use mostly Mac and getting everyone to switch to something else takes time for testing, documentation, roll out etc.
    - jamesfinlayson 4y ago
      Pretty much this - my company doesn't have Linux SOEs so Docker on a Mac means Docker Desktop.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Heck I only remember Docker _losing_ features over time. Docker machine, docker swarm, etc. all relegated to the dust bin despite filling useful roles.
  - ancieque 4y ago
    Swarm never actually went away though. The dust is settling and people are starting to realize that Kubernetes is too complex for a lot of cases. This is where things like acorn.io try to live, but this all feels like trying to get back to the same experience Swarm had.
  - anaganisk 4y ago
    Wut docker swan never went away, I used it everyday. It was a misleading blog post made by some tech journal, which blew docker-ee dropping swarm in favor of another orchestrator. Ce still has it.
tonoto 4y ago
That's a bold move, imho.
donutshop 4y ago
Shrinkflation hits hard everywhere
- sebazzz 4y ago
  Shrinkflation means getting less while paying the same price. For instance: less milk in the same package while still paying €1.50. This is inflation: price increase while still getting the same.
  - _ea1k 4y ago
    I think the team size limits falls under shrinkflation. Features that used to be available in a lower tier are now removed from that tier.
ilovecaching 4y ago
Its unfortunate Docker came out of the VC space instead of being a hobby/research project with no intentions of making money. Solomon Hykes could have been the next Linus Torvalds and Docker could have been completely encompassed by a foundation, with the development being funded by a consortium of businesses each keeping each other in check as in the kernel. As it stands Docker seems to have burnt a lot of open source good will, and now people are left choosing between a failed unicorn desperate to monetize or a Red Hat knockoff designed to get you into RHEL. Docker is such a huge ecosystem of tools rolled into one that it's bound to live on forever, but the magic is gone.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  >now people are left choosing between a failed unicorn desperate to monetize or a Red Hat knockoff designed to get you into RHEL There are other alternatives, like Amazon's Firecracker
  - throitallaway 4y ago
    Firecracker looks more akin to AWS Lambda than Docker/containerization.
- zokier 4y ago
  Lxc was in many ways the community originated docker alternative. Sure, you could nitpick about system vs application containers, but ultimately I believe that it was exactly that VC funding that allowed Docker to make the impact it did.
  - wink 4y ago
    Not sure, lxc has always been a little clunkier but if you look at the 80% case of "docker pull X; docker build .; docker run ..." I don't see how that problem couldn't have been solved. (No, this is not supposed to be a "how hard can it be to build your own dropbox in a weekend", but I did use LXC extensively in the past and with a few aliases it was honestly fine most of the time, for the developer side.)
talhof8 4y ago
Docker Inc... so much unrealized potential.
Eighth 4y ago
"Why are you making these changes?" We want more money, so we're charging more money.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
> The list price of the Docker Business subscription will go up by $3, to $24 per user per month (Business is only available on an annual basis). I hate that this has become an acceptable way to list prices. It's not $24 per month, it's $288 per year! "Per month" implies the customer can pay that price every month, and also stop paying on any given month. In other news, Docker Business is going to cost 3.3¢ per user per hour. Except you're required to pay for the hours you're asleep, because the service is offered "on an annual basis".
- idorosen 4y ago
  The context on the same page one paragraph earlier shows other monthly plan price changes that, so it seems reasonable to me for them to report monthly prices to make it easier for people to compare plan prices and savings as they have.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    But those prices are also reported incorrectly! The page should say something like: > The list price of the Docker Team subscription will go up by $2 monthly / $24 annually, to $11 per user per month or $108 per user per year. (Annual subscribers will continue to save $24 yearly per user.) > The list price of the Docker Business subscription will go up by $36, to $288 per user per year. Note that Docker's pricing page also emphasizes the per-month cost of their annual plans, so this isn't some change they made for the blog post.
- baq 4y ago
  14.3¢ per user per business hour
JOnAgain 4y ago
Teams with over 100 users are going from $7 to $24? 150 users * 12 months * $7/month = $12,600 150 users * 12 months * $24/month = $43,000 Is that right? There are customers who will see their bills more than 3x?
- derkoe 4y ago
  Yes this is happening and In think this was intentional. I think this will just lead to more companies switching to alternatives like Podman Desktop or Rancher Desktop.
- dserodio 4y ago
  Yes, it's happening to us. And on top of that, since Business is only offered via yearly invoice, we'll also have to pay 1 year upfront instead of monthly via credit card as we've been doing. But to make us feel better, they're offering a 30% discount (for this initial year) to the affected companies. This is insane, I don't expect we'll renew out subscription next year. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...
nimbius 4y ago
not to sound snide but...people still pay for docker? podman/skopeo/buildah exist free of charge and run containers rootlessly. theres even a podman-compose tool to migrate from existing compose orchestration. what does a docker subscription get you? the online service? why is this better than just a $250 vps with 12 cores, 48g of ram, and a TB of storage at some place like Ramnode or Vultr?
- vetinari 4y ago
  It's not even for docker. It is for Docker Desktop.
eddyg 4y ago
Colima seems like a pretty nice replacement for Docker Desktop on macOS. [0] https://github.com/abiosoft/colima/ https://github.com/abiosoft/colima/ [1] https://www.arthurkoziel.com/replacing-docker-desktop-for-mac-with-colima/ https://www.arthurkoziel.com/replacing-docker-desktop-for-ma...
- vanillax 4y ago
  It works great
- torginus 4y ago
kanonieer 4y ago
Can anyone recommend a good Docker Hub alternative for simple image hosting excluding AWS/GCP/Azure products?
- dzikimarian 4y ago
  Harbor is ok. We're using it as image storage for about 10 dev teams. https://github.com/goharbor/harbor https://github.com/goharbor/harbor
- jacooper 4y ago
  Managed or hosted?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pestatije 4y ago
    Yes please.
  - kanonieer 4y ago
    Managed would be great.
- dserodio 4y ago
  Depending on your needs, GitHub Packages is an option

59 points by wiennat 4y ago

With Pro accounts limited to 100 users, I believe this is a good opportunity to recall [0], that lists businesses that overprice SSO [0] https://sso.tax/ https://sso.tax/

merb 4y ago
The list misses adobe…
WhatsName 4y ago
SSO as a requirement is a reliable way to differenciate small business/ hobbist from commercial usage of your product. I really don't get at whom this SSO-tax hate is directed at?
- xiwenc 4y ago
  SSO is becoming a necessity for small businesses also. If you are involved in audits, you will understand how valuable it is.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Unrelated to SSO, I’m involved in audits that regularly seek changes which don’t improve safety or security but which often help the bottom line of big providers. If you want a product to succeed without natural growth, get an an auditor to require it. It’s selling your soul and those being audited will hate you, but it’s very lucrative.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    > you will understand how valuable it is. Sounds like it’s worth the cost then.
    - vetinari 4y ago
      No. If you gatekeep SSO, your product is not even considered. There are enough alternatives, so it is not a problem.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        I find it funny that people say things like this, because not only is it demonstrably not true looking at different product segments, but even if it was you're basically admitting to self-selecting as a customer who would never have paid in the first place and so companies are overjoyed that you're not using them. "I would have paid you if you gave me X for free" is the biggest lie.
        vetinari 4y ago
        It is more nuanced like that. If you do not have any other value proposition for paid tiers, you might keep telling yourself that, it is your sales model after all.
        Spivak 4y ago
        sl;kfjasdf;lkasjdefk Okay, look. There's two universes here. Universe A is where split up the features of our product into tiers based on "value" -- some arbitrary groups based on how useful we think each feature is, how expensive they are, how long they took to develop, estimated person-hours saved, whatever. Sweet, it feels right. Now the free/low cost tiers are genuinely less useful than the higher tiers. Pay more for more. SSO probably still lives at the mid or enterprise tier for no other reason that it's a PITA, is the cause of like 20% of support requests, and our SSO vendor charges us per month per SSO connection. Universe B is where the free/low cost tiers have every feature except for specifically the features and increased usage limits that get SMBs and Enterprise to pay us. Both on the sales side and the user side I want to live in Universe B. There is no magic universe where "just increase your value proposition to Enterprise customers" -- it's the same product just carved up differently and non-enterprise customers lose in Universe A.
  - _ea1k 4y ago
    This is less true in places where auditors don't understand sso.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  SSO is not contributing to the core product USP and is pure money extraction mechanism. If company can add enough value on enterprise plan, they could easily drop SSO on less expensive tier. If company cannot add enough value to the core product, they use SSO and reachable customer support to justify more expensive subscription. This may deincentivize customers to buy more or reduce overall security if customer fails to implement processes for standalone login and manual provisioning of accounts.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    > and is pure money extraction mechanism Yes, you act like this is a bad thing. You hold back and charge for the features customers want enough to pay for. You’ve never noticed that whenever there’s a Free/Pro of an app the one feature you need is always on the Pro version? > add enough value on enterprise plan, they could easily drop SSO That really isn’t how it works. You find some small set of features that enterprises must have like SSO, auditing, and compliance and charge them out the ass for it. This is where the real money for every B2B SaaS comes from and subsidizes the low cost tiers which they hope will translate to an enterprise sale when you ask for it at work.
    - eurasiantiger 4y ago
      The problem is that often the pro features are very nearly essential, like having more than one door in a car.
  - nrb 4y ago
    It makes more sense to them to add that other value to the non-enterprise plans or licensing to attract more users, then charge the businesses that MUST have the SSO or audit functionality, because they know enterprise will pay it without blinking an eye.
    - ivan_gammel 4y ago
      It is a common misconception that SSO is useful only on enterprise scale and that companies where SSO and provisioning is crucial for security have huge IT budgets. Any scale-up still on the way to profitability needs it at few hundreds of employees and it’s really hard to justify 100k budget for it. Couple junior admins for provisioning and accepted and misunderstood risk of credentials explosion look more attractive than tripling the bills for every subscription. Who suffers? Customer who is exposed to cybersecurity risks.
- danielheath 4y ago
  The feature is implemented. I'd prefer to use it. It would cost them nothing to let me do so. Yet, I can't, because then big corporates wouldn't be milked for as much cash. I accept this as just another one of those inefficiencies of market capitalism, but it's still a little irksome.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    > The feature is implemented. I'd prefer to use it. It would cost them nothing to let me do so. The other way to view it is, by withholding a nonessential feature, Docker gets big customers to subsidize all the little guys, and their product is more accessible overall.
  - Anon1096 4y ago
    You can say that about any paid feature of literally any b2b software ever.
metadat 4y ago
Discussed 5 months ago: The SSO Wall of Shame https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31175300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31175300 (106 points, 41 comments)

KronisLV 4y ago

For those that don't necessarily want to pay for Docker and primarily want to host/build/use container images, going for self-hosted Nexus can be a more cost effective solution, as I did for my own needs: https://blog.kronis.dev/tutorials/moving-from-gitlab-registry-to-sonatype-nexus https://blog.kronis.dev/tutorials/moving-from-gitlab-registr... (albeit in my case I migrated over from GitLab Registry and now having a proxy registry as well is just an added boon) At this point, even not signing into Docker Hub is perfectly passable, because none of my CI servers ever hit the rate limits, since Nexus can act as a caching proxy, or I can just put my own images in it. It surprises me that this isn't the de-facto way of doing things, since currently it seems like Docker Hub has to deal with a needlessly large amount of network traffic and also countless dead/abandoned images stored in it (and thus, wasted $$$). I also use a pretty simple setup of Gitea and Drone CI for building my images from a Git repo, which works rather nicely, but perhaps that's besides the point (though you can read more about it on my blog). Of course, I won't say that building most/all of your own container images is necessarily something that you should always do. That said, personally, I decided to focus on Ubuntu as a common base image for my own needs and install software that I need (Node, Python, JDK, .NET, Ruby and so on) inside of it through apt, as well as install updates during build time. This lead to my own container images with common tools across the board, common shared layers (e.g. fewer layers to pull if a similar image is already on the server/locally), albeit with fewer space optimizations and some caveats, about which you can read in another article of mine: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/using-ubuntu-as-the-base-for-all-of-my-containers https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/using-ubuntu-as-the-base-fo... Overall, it's been a pretty reasonable experience, though I also understand why folks whose time is 10x more valuable than mine might prefer to throw money at someone, or go for images that have a bit more vendor dark magic in them (e.g. installing JDK through apt vs doing so in alternative ways that save on space). As for Docker Desktop, if you want something like it, Rancher Desktop aims to be a passable alternative, though with a slightly different focus: https://rancherdesktop.io/ https://rancherdesktop.io/ Personally, I don't think that they'll quite succeed anytime soon, because they have a long road ahead of them, much like Podman did (and still has, for some workloads), but it's definitely a promising alternative, given what else the corporation behind it has been capable of (Rancher, RKE and K3s come to mind).

4y ago

skywhopper 4y ago

This is a ~15-30% increase. Truly wild. Meanwhile I can’t remember the last time one of the new features made my life easier.

lma21 4y ago
If i may ask, why do you keep using Docker for Teams/Business? what stopped you from moving to any of the alternatives?
- mrud 4y ago
  For us it is docker desktop. Developers use mostly Mac and getting everyone to switch to something else takes time for testing, documentation, roll out etc.
  - jamesfinlayson 4y ago
    Pretty much this - my company doesn't have Linux SOEs so Docker on a Mac means Docker Desktop.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Heck I only remember Docker _losing_ features over time. Docker machine, docker swarm, etc. all relegated to the dust bin despite filling useful roles.
- ancieque 4y ago
  Swarm never actually went away though. The dust is settling and people are starting to realize that Kubernetes is too complex for a lot of cases. This is where things like acorn.io try to live, but this all feels like trying to get back to the same experience Swarm had.
- anaganisk 4y ago
  Wut docker swan never went away, I used it everyday. It was a misleading blog post made by some tech journal, which blew docker-ee dropping swarm in favor of another orchestrator. Ce still has it.

tonoto 4y ago

That's a bold move, imho.

donutshop 4y ago

Shrinkflation hits hard everywhere

sebazzz 4y ago
Shrinkflation means getting less while paying the same price. For instance: less milk in the same package while still paying €1.50. This is inflation: price increase while still getting the same.
- _ea1k 4y ago
  I think the team size limits falls under shrinkflation. Features that used to be available in a lower tier are now removed from that tier.

ilovecaching 4y ago

Its unfortunate Docker came out of the VC space instead of being a hobby/research project with no intentions of making money. Solomon Hykes could have been the next Linus Torvalds and Docker could have been completely encompassed by a foundation, with the development being funded by a consortium of businesses each keeping each other in check as in the kernel. As it stands Docker seems to have burnt a lot of open source good will, and now people are left choosing between a failed unicorn desperate to monetize or a Red Hat knockoff designed to get you into RHEL. Docker is such a huge ecosystem of tools rolled into one that it's bound to live on forever, but the magic is gone.

HideousKojima 4y ago
>now people are left choosing between a failed unicorn desperate to monetize or a Red Hat knockoff designed to get you into RHEL There are other alternatives, like Amazon's Firecracker
- throitallaway 4y ago
  Firecracker looks more akin to AWS Lambda than Docker/containerization.
zokier 4y ago
Lxc was in many ways the community originated docker alternative. Sure, you could nitpick about system vs application containers, but ultimately I believe that it was exactly that VC funding that allowed Docker to make the impact it did.
- wink 4y ago
  Not sure, lxc has always been a little clunkier but if you look at the 80% case of "docker pull X; docker build .; docker run ..." I don't see how that problem couldn't have been solved. (No, this is not supposed to be a "how hard can it be to build your own dropbox in a weekend", but I did use LXC extensively in the past and with a few aliases it was honestly fine most of the time, for the developer side.)

talhof8 4y ago

Docker Inc... so much unrealized potential.

Eighth 4y ago

"Why are you making these changes?" We want more money, so we're charging more money.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

> The list price of the Docker Business subscription will go up by $3, to $24 per user per month (Business is only available on an annual basis). I hate that this has become an acceptable way to list prices. It's not $24 per month, it's $288 per year! "Per month" implies the customer can pay that price every month, and also stop paying on any given month. In other news, Docker Business is going to cost 3.3¢ per user per hour. Except you're required to pay for the hours you're asleep, because the service is offered "on an annual basis".

idorosen 4y ago
The context on the same page one paragraph earlier shows other monthly plan price changes that, so it seems reasonable to me for them to report monthly prices to make it easier for people to compare plan prices and savings as they have.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  But those prices are also reported incorrectly! The page should say something like: > The list price of the Docker Team subscription will go up by $2 monthly / $24 annually, to $11 per user per month or $108 per user per year. (Annual subscribers will continue to save $24 yearly per user.) > The list price of the Docker Business subscription will go up by $36, to $288 per user per year. Note that Docker's pricing page also emphasizes the per-month cost of their annual plans, so this isn't some change they made for the blog post.
baq 4y ago
14.3¢ per user per business hour

JOnAgain 4y ago

Teams with over 100 users are going from $7 to $24? 150 users * 12 months * $7/month = $12,600 150 users * 12 months * $24/month = $43,000 Is that right? There are customers who will see their bills more than 3x?

derkoe 4y ago
Yes this is happening and In think this was intentional. I think this will just lead to more companies switching to alternatives like Podman Desktop or Rancher Desktop.
dserodio 4y ago
Yes, it's happening to us. And on top of that, since Business is only offered via yearly invoice, we'll also have to pay 1 year upfront instead of monthly via credit card as we've been doing. But to make us feel better, they're offering a 30% discount (for this initial year) to the affected companies. This is insane, I don't expect we'll renew out subscription next year. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...

nimbius 4y ago

not to sound snide but...people still pay for docker? podman/skopeo/buildah exist free of charge and run containers rootlessly. theres even a podman-compose tool to migrate from existing compose orchestration. what does a docker subscription get you? the online service? why is this better than just a $250 vps with 12 cores, 48g of ram, and a TB of storage at some place like Ramnode or Vultr?

vetinari 4y ago
It's not even for docker. It is for Docker Desktop.

eddyg 4y ago

Colima seems like a pretty nice replacement for Docker Desktop on macOS. [0] https://github.com/abiosoft/colima/ https://github.com/abiosoft/colima/ [1] https://www.arthurkoziel.com/replacing-docker-desktop-for-mac-with-colima/ https://www.arthurkoziel.com/replacing-docker-desktop-for-ma...

vanillax 4y ago
It works great
torginus 4y ago

kanonieer 4y ago

Can anyone recommend a good Docker Hub alternative for simple image hosting excluding AWS/GCP/Azure products?

dzikimarian 4y ago
Harbor is ok. We're using it as image storage for about 10 dev teams. https://github.com/goharbor/harbor https://github.com/goharbor/harbor
jacooper 4y ago
Managed or hosted?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pestatije 4y ago
  Yes please.
- kanonieer 4y ago
  Managed would be great.
dserodio 4y ago
Depending on your needs, GitHub Packages is an option