Reliability: It’s not great

Fundamentally I think some of the problems come down to the difference between what Fly set out to build and what the market currently want.

Fly (to my understanding) at its core is about edge compute. That is where they started and what the team are most excited about developing. It's a brilliant idea, they have the skills and expertise. They are going to be successful at it.

However, at the same time the market is looking for a successor to Heroku. A zero dev ops PAAS with instant deployment, dirt simple managed Postgres, generous free level of service, lower cost as you scale, and a few regions around the world. That isn't what Fly set out to do... exactly, but is sort of the market they find themselves in when Heroku then basically told its low value customers to go away.

It's that slight miss alignment of strategy and market fit that results in maybe decisions being made that benefit the original vision, but not necessarily the immediate influx of customers.

I don't envy the stress the Fly team are under, but what an exciting set of problems they are trying to solve, I do envy that!

I agree - fly is so easy to use (when it works) that it’s hard not to be impressed. BUT what I’ve found is that we don’t need edge compute, since our customers aren’t that latency sensitive, so it’s lost on us. It’s only a few more milliseconds to us-east-1.

I’ve heard (on HN) of a dozen different companies vying for the heroku replacement spots and yet Fly seemed to capture the attention. I couldn’t name another one off hand.

What I truly want and probably lots of other people too is Flyctl (and workflow) for AWS. The same simplicity to run as fly, but give me something cheap in Virginia or the Dalles.

Render.com is another spiritual successor of Heroku. I'd love a world where Fly and Render are both very successful companies.

Not gonna happen. Both will get acquired because that’s how things work now

Unless a company is very explicit about this not being in the books, I tend to share this outlook.

From the perspective of a recent founder, it's downright spooky to build around any SaaS, considering how few of them have been around for 10+ years, when that is certainly what our business is aiming for.

I know (and share the feels): Devs tend to get excited about the new thing – but if Google Workspace shut down next month, we would be in so much operational trouble. When other peoples fancies stand in the way of the entire operation you are responsible for, it actually begs the question how much closed source SaaS you can allow before it starts to be quite frankly irresponsible.

We are not imagining things. SaaS of all sizes shut down all the time, and when you are heavily relying on them and building software around them to run a business the prospect is spooky as hell.

The difference between (free) Gmail and Google workspace is that workspace is a paid product. If you're big enough to warrant an AM, you can get terms which include continuity of business planning if Google does happen to shut down Workspace. (They won't.)