CloudBees DevSecOps Platform is an end-to-end CI/CD workflow solution built on Tekton, uses a GitHub Actions style domain-specific language (DSL), and adds feature flagging, security, compliance, pipeline orchestration, analytics, and value stream management (VSM) into a fully-managed single-tenant SaaS, multi-tenant SaaS or on-premise virtual private cloud instance.
I bet there are 100 other Okta customers who saw something similar and are on reporting on it - props should be given to 1Password to publicly talk about this. All this shows how interconnected the cloud world is and there is nothing called absolute security. You want absolute security -> crawl back into the on-prem world.
Okta messed this up big time. Companies get breached all the time but how they handle the breach shows the maturity/mettle of the leadership team. This is the second time their comms strategy failed miserably. They need to immediately re-evaluate their incident response operating structure. Cloudfare has some good suggestions.
You can do approximate math from Series C, where they raised $130M at $1.5B valuation - announced in May 2021. The ARR multiples in 2021 was 50X NTM ARR. They potentially hit $30M by end of 2021 (raised sometime late 2020/early 2021).
Now even if they grew at 40-50% YoY CAGR (which is on the bullish side) - $60M-$70M ARR, approximately giving them a 10-12x ARR multiple for NTM revenue, put them squarely in the median to high-end valuation mutiple for PLG companies growing at 30-50% YoY (https://www.meritechcapital.com/benchmarking/historical-trad...)
Atlassian has a record of failed acquisitions:
Bitbucket, HipChat, Trello, OpsGenie,.. and the list goes on. Add Loom to that list.
In this market, when every single collab company is struggling, Atlassian goes and acquires a collab company when there are so many companies in the DevTools space or get your pick in AI. Spending a billion on a video sharing tool? Unsure what they were thinking and who all are advising the founders. I see the Aussie connection though..
OpsGenie, until the really bad way they handled an outage last year, it was, sometimes begrudgingly, widely used, recommended sometimes even.
Trello, on the other hand, seems like what everyone wants to use but no organization seems to want to let people use. Everyone that uses Trello seemingly, likes it
They didn’t spend a billion for the tech, they spent it for the huge userbase already full of fledgling enterprise leads. It’s a lead generation acquisition. I do hope they don’t ruin the product, though.
Privacy is a myth in today's world. It has become a marketing anthem for many including Apple. If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data.
Also do you realize everything you do offline is being collected as well - your credit card transactions (visa knows more about you than Google), camera at traffic stops or your favorite restaurants, government listening to your phone call, etc. etc.
> If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data.
In Google’s case. In Apple’s case I’m giving them money for products and services. The money Apple makes from my data is meaningless when compared to Google’s M.O.
So... same captive situation, you're just hoping they exploit you less?
Neither of them are particularly transparent or accountable from a privacy perspective. It's kinda funny that someone would acknowledge the helplessness of the present duopoly, then claim they feel safe inside the lion's cage because "I already fed him earlier".
In what ways are Apple and Google not transparent about their privacy practices ? I think both are quite clear and upfront about where the lines are, compared to pretty much everyone else.
Accountable is interesting - they are as accountable as any other company, and if anything, both are under much closer scrutiny than anyone else, and have bigger reputational risks than anyone else.
> both are under much closer scrutiny than anyone else, and have bigger reputational risks than anyone else.
People say this a lot, but why does nobody care so far?
I'd posit the simple answer is "it's easier not to", but also that governments are happy to reinforce a duopoly they control. We already know both Google and Apple are PRISM members as well as involved in the international FIVE-EYES network. That never really stained their reputation, despite being a universal backdoor. Google has exploited and broken YouTube several times over, but nobody stopped using it in objection. Apple moved their servers into government-owned Chinese datacenters, and nobody protested it financially.
The threat to their actual reputations is almost non-existent, from what I've seen. If people cared, we wouldn't be fixing FAANG's problems 10 years after-the-fact.
I don't feel very captive on my Samsung handset either. All that emotion does very little to let me read the modem firmware, much less ensure the privacy of the device. That's what OP's point was, that you were responding to. They were saying that privacy is always a reductive argument; your response is that paying for things makes you feel safe. That feels more like you're addressing your own insecurity instead of what the commenter actually wrote.
> …your response is that paying for things makes you feel safe.
That's an interesting interpretation, but what I actually did was point out the elephant in the room — that Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.
Given two business models — one based on monetizing your data and behavior, the other based on accepting money for goods and services — which would you say is more pro-privacy?
Whichever one you trust with less data. Neither of them can be held to a bar of inscrutability because both of them manufacture surveillance devices. You can't even deny it.
> Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.
Their business model has nothing to do with the topic of privacy-washing though. That's why I responded to you in the first place; your assertion that these revenue models matter is nonsense. It's a quaint fairy-tale you tell yourself to justify storing sensitive data with them. I'm not going to jostle you awake, but I am going to remind you that they're no more transparent in their approach than Google. If anything, your original comment highlights just how effective the duopoly is; both of these adtech companies are being treated like Marvel vs DC instead of Moloch vs Satan.
So... as far as privacywashing is concerned, I'd trust neither of them. They're both proven snakes who lie about their opaque infrastructure and do little to contribute to society's collective safety, online or individually.
> …your assertion that these revenue models matter is nonsense.
I'm fascinated by this take, and I understand your comments better knowing that this is your honest POV. Although we'll never agree, keep fighting the good fight!
I don't know which world you live in - it was never an enterprise first company. From the very beginning it catered to teams (not orgs) and refused to sell to the enterprise.
Funny anecdote - "Jira is still growing and I have personally talked to many developers who love it". There is an inherent bias in Hacker News on certain stories or perceptions getting amplified. This is primarily the silicon valley echo chamber.
I have been reading about how Jira is going to die for the last 10 years. It has not happened yet. And I don't foresee it happening in the near future - there are so many competitors in the graveyard: Asana, Monday, ClickUp, Product Board, Clubhouse, and Linear will be next.
Jira will not die , even if every last developer on the planet hate it , they are not the buyers . I have never seen a manager express negative feedback let alone hate it .
As long as managers keep liking it over anything else , nothing will change .
There are no realistic peers to Jira for, developers or knowledge workers have to use the product , it only has to designed for the buyer , which atlassian does very well
I think this is the section:
"In today’s model, an automation rule that is configured to run in a single Jira project does not count toward the usage limit. In the new model, all automation rule types (i.e. single project, project type, multi-project, and global rules) will count towards the usage limit."
