It sounds like a blog post in support of a slowdown for product releases. But the reality is there are multiple companies trying to capture the attention of the same market.

Maybe 2 years ago it would’ve been acceptable to release the product internally, slowly add features, dogfood it, then open to public a year later. But now someone else will release the same product within a month, get sticky customers, and most likely won’t switch.

It’s much easier and faster to release features, so once anyone sees a competition gaining some attention, they just copy the same feature. Which, i think, is fair.

It’s easy to blame the org, but the market is extremely competitive right now. Kind of race to the bottom, except the hardware parts, which have different constraints right now.

▲

orliesaurus 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Hi, I wrote the post, I think blaming the org for releasing things that aren't engineered/created with "love" (including docs, examples, long-term planning and a roadmap of improvement that will follow-on), and suitable for production, without labeling them as beta, is in fact detrimental to the status of a company's image.

	▲	tokioyoyo 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		AWS/GCP/Azure are full of abandonware. I’m more familiar with the AWS-side of things, and most of them were/are built on top of existing core services. AWS’s/GCP’s image is fine. I’d say as long as CF’s core (CDN/DDoS mitigation/etc.) is stable, they should experiment. To put it this way, it took GH almost a year to release Stacked PRs to public. And it’s already being questioned if it’ll stand the test of time. Again, insanely competitive market, as everyone wants to sell shovels.
	▲	esseph 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So where do you stand on AWS that may release more than 25 new services a year?