[ksajadi]

I've been bitten by service shut downs like this and over the years, here is the "rulebook" I've made for myself to reduce the risk:

- Don't use products from startups with unknown, dubious business models that are clearly subsidised by VC money until they "figure out how to monetize". (recently I saw a company saying "our business model is still firming up, whatever that means).

- Open source doesn't mean it's safe. Very few open source companies have solid business models and if the vast majority of the contrinbutors to the project come from the same company, then if they go down or get aquihired reviving the project and its community is not always guaranteed or simple. OSS projects need major adoption to be safe from this sort of damage.

- I sometimes even research the VCs backing the founders as well. I have seen companies founded by associates in VC firms leaving the firm to start a company because they know 1. they can get funding from their old pals in the firm, 2. they are going to be selling the company quickly to X because of some insider information about X's need or an internal project to find a company to buy in the space. Some founders are serial "build and flip"ers and I avoid using their products.

I feel much safer buying crtical services from a bootstrapped and profitable startup than a well funded one that doesn't have a clear business model.

[germainelong]

2. Open Source is relatively safe when you are able to self-host it. It is good to setup an environment and test the features on your own machines and also check how easy is to extract the data.

1-3 is a roulette. Unless they have a technology that you cannot substitute with an open source solution then it is difficult to justify using it. There must be a solid extraction plan available so that you can move your data to an alternative solution in reasonable time. Sometimes it is better to hire a team and expand existing open source solution with necessary features. Sometimes this could lead to a side product and another stream of revenue.

[oliwarner]

Having source and license to run something, and being willing and able to self-support the software through (eg) security issues are two very different prospects.

This is network infrastructure stuff. Not the kind of thing you leave to fester.

[nine_k]

At least, it gives you a much longer runway to migrate off the no-more-supported solution.

SaaS, if it closes shop, becomes instantly unavailable.

[germainelong]

You can always outsource the support but being in the control as well.

[mooreds]

> Don't use products from startups with unknown, dubious business models that are clearly subsidised by VC money until they "figure out how to monetize".

This is why I tell every startup I talk to (not that many, to be fair) to charge as soon as they possibly can, preferably in the first months after launch (b2b of course, consumer is a different beast).