[sbarre]

That's some cherry-picking right there. That is a small part of the announcement.

Right at the top of the page it says:

> consumption limits are coming March 1st, 2025.

Then further in the article it says:

> We’re introducing image pull and storage limits for Docker Hub.

Then at the bottom in the summary it says again:

> The Docker Hub plan limits will take effect on March 1, 2025

I think like everyone else is saying here, if you rely on a service for your production environments it is your responsibility to stay up to date on upcoming changes and plan for them appropriately.

If I were using a critical service, paid or otherwise, that said "limits are coming on this date" and it wasn't clear to me what those limits were, I certainly would not sit around waiting to find out. I would proactively investigate and plan for it.

[noname120]

The whole article is PR bs that makes it sound like they are introducing new features in the commercial plans and hiking up their prices accordingly to make up for the additional value of the plans.

I mean just starting with the title:

> Announcing Upgraded Docker Plans: Simpler, More Value, Better Development and Productivity

Wow great it's simpler, more value, better development and productivity!

Then somewhere in the middle of the 1500-word (!) PR fluff there is a paragraph with bullet points:

> With the rollout of our unified suites, we’re also updating our pricing to reflect the additional value. Here’s what’s changing at a high level:

> • Docker Business pricing stays the same but gains the additional value and features announced today.

> • Docker Personal remains — and will always remain — free. This plan will continue to be improved upon as we work to grant access to a container-first approach to software development for all developers.

> • Docker Pro will increase from $5/month to $9/month and Docker Team prices will increase from $9/user/month to $15/user/mo (annual discounts). Docker Business pricing remains the same.

And at that point if you're still reading this bullet point is coming:

> We’re introducing image pull and storage limits for Docker Hub. This will impact less than 3% of accounts, the highest commercial consumers.

Ah cool I guess we'll need to be careful how much storage we use for images pushed to our private registry on Docker Hub and how much we pull them.

Well it's an utter and complete lie because even non-commercial users are affected.

————

This super long article (1500 words) intentionally buries the lede because they are afraid of a backlash. But you can't reasonably say “I told u so” when you only mentioned in a bullet point somewhere in a PR article that there will be limits that impact the top 3% of commercial users, then 4 months later give a one week notice that images pulls will be capped to 10 pulls per hour LOL.

The least they could do is to introduce random pull failures with an increasing probability rate over time until it finally entirely fails. That's what everyone does with deprecated APIs. Some people are in for a big surprise when a production incident will cause all their images to be pulled again which will cascade in an even bigger failure.

[sbarre]

None of this takes away from my point that the facts are in the article, if you read it.

If the PR stuff isn't for you, fine, ignore that. Take notes on the parts that do matter to you, and then validate those in whatever way you need to in order to assure the continuity of your business based on how you rely on Docker Hub.

Simply the phrase "consumption limits" should be a pretty clear indicator that you need to dig into that and find out more, if you rely on Docker in production.

I don't get everyone's refusal here to be responsible for their own shit, like Docker owes you some bespoke explanation or solution, when you are using their free tier.

How you chose to interpret the facts they shared, and what assumptions you made, and if you just sat around waiting for these additional details to come out, is on you.

They also link to an FAQ (to be fair we don't know when that was published or updated) with more of a Q&A format and the same information.

[mlyle]

It's intentionally buried. The FAQ is significantly different in November; it does say that unauthenticated pulls will experience rate limits, but the documentation for the rate limits given doesn't offer the limit of 10/hour but instead talks about how to authenticate, how to read limits using API, etc.

The snippets about rate limiting give the impression that they're going to be at rates that don't affect most normal use. Lots of docker images have 15 layers; doesn't this mean you can't even pull one of these? In effect, there's not really an unauthenticated service at all anymore.

> “But the plans were on display…”

> “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

> “That’s the display department.”

> “With a flashlight.”

> “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

> “So had the stairs.”

> “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

> “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

[sbarre]

I'm certainly not trying to argue or challenge anyone's interpretations of motive or assumptions of intent (no matter how silly I find them - we're all entitled to our opinions).

I am saying that when change is coming, particularly ambiguous or unclear change like many people feel this is, it's no one's responsibility but yours to make sure your production systems are not negatively affected by the change.

That can mean everything from confirming data with the platform vendor, to changing platforms if you can't get the assurances you need.

Y'all seem to be fixated on complaining about Docker's motives and behaviour, but none of that fixes a production system that's built on the assumption that these changes aren't happening.

[hansvm]

> but none of that fixes a production system that's built on the assumption that these changes aren't happening.

Somebody's going to have the same excuse when Google graveyards GCP. Till this change, was it obvious to anyone that you had to audit every PR fluff piece for major changes to the way Docker does business?

[sbarre]

> was it obvious to anyone that you had to audit every PR fluff piece for major changes to the way Docker does business?

You seem(?) to be assuming this PR piece, that first announced the change back in Sept 2024, is the only communication they put out until this latest one?

That's not an assumption I would make, but to each their own.

[flubbergusto]

Sure, but at least those of us reading this thread have learned this lesson and will be prepared. Right?

[cratermoon]

But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”

“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

[naikrovek]

> I don't get everyone's refusal here to be responsible for their own shit

No kidding. Clashes with the “gotta hustle always” culture, I guess.

Or it means that they can’t hide their four full-time jobs from each of the four employers as easily while they fix this at all four places at the same time.

The “I am owed free services” mentality needs to be shot in the face at close range.