Most active commenters
  • alex_sf(4)

←back to thread

1226 points bishopsmother | 15 comments | | HN request time: 2.271s | source | bottom
Show context
samwillis ◴[] No.35046486[source]
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!

replies(20): >>35046650 #>>35046685 #>>35046754 #>>35046953 #>>35047128 #>>35047302 #>>35047334 #>>35047345 #>>35047376 #>>35047603 #>>35047656 #>>35047786 #>>35047788 #>>35047937 #>>35048244 #>>35048674 #>>35049946 #>>35050285 #>>35051885 #>>35056048 #
ec109685 ◴[] No.35046953[source]
The CloudFlare folks wrote a good blog post on how they are seeing their customers use Edge compute — latency is far down on the list: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-workers-serverless-we...
replies(2): >>35047067 #>>35047122 #
fmajid ◴[] No.35047122[source]
The US CLOUD Act means a EU customer cannot use a US cloud provider to host PII, even if the server itself is physically in the EU, because US law will still compel the provider to yield the data to US authorities. The European Commission is trying to paper over the cracks with a fig leaf of judicial review, but it's only a matter of time until a Schrems III decision from the CJEU invalidates that polite fiction.
replies(6): >>35047259 #>>35049766 #>>35049953 #>>35050521 #>>35053056 #>>35054838 #
1. alex_sf ◴[] No.35050521[source]
Not exactly related to the OP, but: I think I speak for a large number of folks when I say that we don't care. The EU keeps passing all sorts of absurd laws that require dedicated auditors to comply with. It's just not going to happen. If they decide to actively enforce these things, they'll just isolate themselves from the rest of the world.
replies(1): >>35050681 #
2. ricardobeat ◴[] No.35050681[source]
As an EEUU resident, we also don't care. We can survive without youtube and instagram and the whole surveillance industry. Some of the laws place a heavy burden on giant tech companies, but for good reason.
replies(5): >>35051709 #>>35052602 #>>35053162 #>>35053200 #>>35053827 #
3. alex_sf ◴[] No.35051709[source]
They place a burden on everyone. A burden that's going to create a two-tier internet where service is immediately refused to EU citizens by every provider except the giant tech companies that can afford to comply.
replies(3): >>35054385 #>>35054868 #>>35055552 #
4. strken ◴[] No.35052602[source]
That's a nice theory, but it may not survive the next few decades of regulatory capture by the same type of company you believe it's intended to act against.
5. Kiro ◴[] No.35053162[source]
You don't speak for me. I don't want to live without YouTube.
6. arlort ◴[] No.35053200[source]
Where are you from that you use EEUU as an acronym?
7. SZJX ◴[] No.35053827[source]
Interesting that "EEUU" from my knowledge mostly refers to the US (Estados Unidos) in a Spanish context. The abbreviation for European Union would be UE (Unión Europea) right.
replies(1): >>35054093 #
8. ricardobeat ◴[] No.35054093{3}[source]
Oops. Late-night brainfart, I'm a portuguese speaker and got things a bit mixed up :)
9. Timon3 ◴[] No.35054385{3}[source]
Why exactly is it seemingly so expensive not to sell your customer data?
replies(1): >>35057818 #
10. tpxl ◴[] No.35054868{3}[source]
> giant tech companies that can afford to comply

Where does this sentiment come from? Cost of compliance for Facebook is many orders of magnitude higher than cost of compliance for a website for your hairdresser or a restaurant.

In my startup, GDPR was barely a blip on our radar. We had to delete website logs and that's about that. You have to keep record of customers/payment information for laws that supersede GDPR, and that's it if you run a legitimate business not reliant on stealing.

replies(1): >>35057801 #
11. quicksilver03 ◴[] No.35055552{3}[source]
Close, the giant tech companies may or may not comply but they surely can afford the fines that the various EU Data Protection authorities dream into reality by twisting an ever-changing body of interpretation of ambiguously written rules.
12. alex_sf ◴[] No.35057801{4}[source]
This simply isn't true. Look at the absurdity of all the cookie banners just to support basic login functionality. I'm all for internet privacy, but these laws are so sweeping that it's impossible to be compliant without a dedicated function for it.
replies(1): >>35061829 #
13. alex_sf ◴[] No.35057818{4}[source]
That's not the issue. I don't want to see personal data sold either. It's all the little rules. There are hundreds of pages just in GDPR. You need a banner and explicit opt-in just to support login/logout functionality.
replies(1): >>35092951 #
14. lawik ◴[] No.35061829{5}[source]
No need for cookie banners for functionality like login. Ref: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/32157
15. Timon3 ◴[] No.35092951{5}[source]
Can you explain why you believe this to be the case? Let's say you log the user in. Yes, you need consent to store a login cookie, but that doesn't mean you need "a banner and explicit opt-in". You only need explicit opt-in, which you can do by... putting a "remember me" box next to your login form[1]. Is that really so hard?

[1] https://law.stackexchange.com/a/32157