When we signed up for Meteor, we were sold on an open source platform. However, (as I feared,) in the recent Galaxy announcement, we can see the “platform” was called an SDK. This implies that the proprietary Galaxy is the platform, and Meteor is the tool you use to build for it.
Now, I think Meteor is insanely slick, and I love that its completely open. However, having Galaxy in the picture makes me wonder how MDG will balance the open side and the commercial side.
For example, I think many of us are expecting some kind of separate Pub/Sub service that will further scale Meteor’s oplog observer. If I had to guess, I’d say it would run as a service with-in Galaxy. But where does that leave the people who choose to host themselves?
Or, to take a different route, lets say MDG develops a file upload API for Meteor. Would this API be only be compatible with Galaxy, or can you choose where to store your files? If the former, what options will we have to port our data and/or host things ourselves?
Perhaps most helpful thing to know would be: what kind of company does MDG see itself as in the future? I believe Red Hat operates with everything being open source, and them making money off services. In contrast, I think Unreal makes money when people using their platform do. I think both are good strategies, but they will attract a different kind of developer.
I have been hearing @debergalis call Meteor an “SDK” since the beginning of time. I think it’s just a legacy term from the days of kernel hackers where any “Kit you use to Develop Software” was called an “SDK”.
I don’t think that word implies the same thing in this context as something like “Android SDK”, which means you basically develop something that only runs on Android.
Let’s think about this from MDG’s point of view for a second - I don’t think we can afford to ship a framework that only works on Galaxy. We’d lose all of our users immediately! Then we would make no money and we’d all need to find new jobs. Not even people who can afford Galaxy at its current price point want to be on a platform nobody else is using.
No mention of MongoDB @maxsavin? Aren’t they a great example of toeing the line, offering a core open source project, enterprise support and hosting solutions? [aside: In that light isn’t galaxy being focused on companies, skipping the small fish for now, even less of a surprise.]
I imagine one could make the same arguments for mongo creating features that only they support? Or is there something I’m missing?
I’m all for watch dogs! It’s good for accountability for MDG or any company to know that people would notice if they took a legal but unethical strategy. However, I don’t think there are any red flags yet…
As you say perhaps it’s a ‘critical moment’, even if there are no red flags. On the other hand, there’s nearly always an options on the table for a less ethical decision every day for every choice. We knew galaxy was coming, most were excited about it. Nothing in Galaxy shows malintent. In fact not combining including db services and “solving”/handling oplog issues exclusively in galaxy, as some expected, shows even less plans for devious behaviour (while also offers significantly less market differentiation than expected).
I think there’s a catch-22 in here: all the services that you are worried about are also the ones that are most desired and MDG is in a position to provide. At some point they do have to make real money, we always knew that.
Again, all for watchdogs, but someone’s gotta watch the watchmen!