[selfhoster11]

I don't even know why they need so much money for what they do.

Based on their website, they solve the following problems:

- a central schema registery. Even if that's something you actually want, it's not a problem that requires $93M to solve, or a commercial company to operate

- communicating schema changes primarily via human-oriented sources like handwritten documentation on emails. I mean sure, if you are a masochist (or a sufficiently inefficient org), you might do just that. The rest of us here in the 21st century can check the schema into a Git repo instead.

- schema drift on the client end. Tough, this is what happens when you write software. Adding a third party won't help here.

- dependency management. For APIs? I cannot imagine a single case where that would help and your API isn't already a monstrosity.

[catsarebetter]

Hmm well I get that we're in an asset bubble with startups, but if this company is creating jobs, then I think it's somewhat reasonable to assume that they are fixing a problem ppl are willing to pay for.

I do agree with what you're saying from my perspective as an average swe that doesn't do anything highly specialized...

I wonder though, what would the workflows look like for a swe, product, ops person even, where schema changes get passed around and edited so much, (kind of making some assumptions here, comparing central schema registry to crm use cases), that this would be necessary...

Wonder what the shape of the problem looks like...

[ByteJockey]

Is there enough money to recoup investment if they don't get the average engineer churning out crud apps?

I mean, there probably is, but what kind of market penetration would this require if you are only going after the specialists?