[nmcfarl]

Which is an expensive way to run a company.

Very few startup start with their own server rooms, because part of the "failing fast" is failing cheap. And if you are making infrastructure investments before you find product market fit - well you aren't failing cheap.

I do think there is inherent value in controlling your whole stack, and running all things on your own servers, but I think this is a bit of a luxury most young companies can't afford.

[chrismonsanto]

I don't know anything about 'failing fast' or other startup methodologies (I'm here for the hacker part of this community, not the startup part).

Is this product designed specifically for startups? Is it intended to be removed later when you have 'found product market fit'? Isn't it more expensive to be locked in to this platform, which you don't have the source to, and can't modify if it doesn't 100% meet your needs?

[UK-AL]

" can't modify if it doesn't 100% meet your needs?" And its even more expensive to spend developer time doing it, then finding out no one wants your product.

That's what meant by failing fast. Find a quick way to validate your product in the market, then fail. Don't spend ages working on a product that will never work.

[jonahx]

I don't understand this comment.

On digitalocean you can get 4G RAM for 40/month, 8G for 80. Running nginx and your favorite backend of choice, you will be able to handle any traffic your startup is getting. If you can't, you are already so successful that paying more won't matter....

[nmcfarl]

This is a simple enough misunderstanding

I don't think that you own a digital ocean or ec2 instance - you rent them the same way you are renting the service this thread talking about. Given that chrismonsanto, is taking an even more hard line approach to controlling his stack than I do, I'm assuming he agrees (I know - dangerous).

When I talk about my servers I'm talking about things sitting in my racks (possibly in my server room), that I can rip components out of and upgrade. I'm talking about very expensive things, if not in terms of purchase price, certainly in terms of care and maintenance.

--

And to tie it back up to my other comment, I think there is value in owning your own servers, and in coding your stack from top to bottom, and having no external dependencies. But I think these are both very expensive choices - and the kinds of choices, most startups don't have the time/money for.

[chrismonsanto]

> Given that chrismonsanto, is taking an even more hard line approach to controlling his stack than I do, I'm assuming he agrees (I know - dangerous).

I'm actually OK with using something like EC2, because I control what runs on it. If I feel I can't trust EC2, or that it is too expensive, I can purchase my own hardware and move my stack to that. However, if I outsource my user management, I imagine the interfaces will be proprietary, and I will have to tear up my stack quite a bit to switch. I don't like that risk.

> I think there is value ... in coding your stack from top to bottom, and having no external dependencies

I'm also OK with having dependencies on other people's work, I just want the source code available so I can fix up things if necessary. I don't even require that the software is 'open source' or 'free software', since I don't plan to redistribute my changes. I do currently have one component in my stack that is proprietary (with source) and I have very much appreciated the ability to fix up things that didn't fully integrate with the rest of my service.

[jonahx]

Ah, okay I get it. Thanks for explaining.

Of course, there are levels of dependence, and I think hosting on amazon or DO represents a much, much smaller risk than outsourcing your user management to a startup (or even a well-established company, for that matter).