It’s a sign of Docker’s maturity in the market that people are now starting to seriously question their monetization strategy. Matt Asay breaks down why Red Hat is able to succeed at monetizing the very technology that Docker is pioneering.
Matt points out that right now, the real revenue in containers comes down to management. Docker may be ubiquitous in terms of container deployment. But because they’ve followed a model of open-sourcing a lot of their code, the money is only coming in on the management side.
Docker has their own offering with Docker Datacenter, but this doesn’t play to their strength. Red Hat contributes heavily to the Docker project, and uses Docker for container deployment in their OpenShift solution. But they also have the benefit of being a known quantity in the enterprise for support and reliability. Right now, Docker doesn’t have those same relationships.
I think Docker still has a bit of runway to use before the monetization question becomes overwhelming to their overall business. But Matt is right to point out that their revenue generating products have some stiff competition. It’s amazing how quick perception can turn a hot startup into a financial liability for VCs. Docker isn’t there yet, and I don’t think will get to that point. But simply being ubiquitous doesn’t pay the bills either.
Matt Asay at TechRepublic comments:
Red Hat’s OpenShift may be better positioned than Docker Datacenter to monetize the Docker revolution. Here’s why.
Read more at: Why Red Hat makes more money on Docker than Docker does
