[HN Gopher] Cloudflare announced four major new features that co...
___________________________________________________________________
Cloudflare announced four major new features that could disrupt
industries
Author : heymax054
Score : 237 points
Date : 2021-10-04 14:07 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.indiehackers.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.indiehackers.com)
| pixelgeek wrote:
| Cloudflare has offered the potential to disrupt several
| industries.
|
| I actually thought that the distributed web workers was more
| interesting but that is just my focus.
| aaomidi wrote:
| It's kinda astonishing to me that were fine with a third party
| company terminating end to end encryption between the service
| provider and the user. It just feels...so off to me that we've
| normalized this.
|
| Hopefully there will be new standards in the future. But for now
| this is slightly terrifying to me.
| nightpool wrote:
| Ultimately, if you're running in a virtualized cloud
| environment, you already trust your hosting company with your
| website's certificates (because there's no way to stop them
| from spying on your machine's core memory). So for most users,
| it's not a major change to expand the trusted set from {Amazon}
| to {Cloudflare, Amazon}. If you're the only one with root
| access to your hardware, then more power to you. But for most
| people I don't think it's a major change of threat model.
| adventured wrote:
| Cloudflare doesn't require terminating end to end encryption
| between the service provider and the user.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Sure if you just use it as a dns provider.
| detaro wrote:
| Cloudflare is a service provider the site owner contracts with
| too, so why the distinction?
| aaomidi wrote:
| Because math doesn't break like contracts do mainly.
| detaro wrote:
| that doesn't address my point, since you can say the exact
| same about wherever the site is hosted unless you strictly
| self-host everything, which the vast majority of sites
| doesn't do.
| aaomidi wrote:
| To me there's a difference. Probably that terminating tls
| is base of CFs business model.
|
| Or that I'm just being illogical. No idea, just...don't
| like it.
| detaro wrote:
| I'd argue the base is caching and load-balancing. And
| pretty much everything that has a business model of
| handling web traffic will need to handle HTTPS for its
| customers nowadays.
| throwaway78981 wrote:
| You are not illogical:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28714516
| acdha wrote:
| CDNs have existed since the 90s so everyone's had time to get
| used to it. The part which I think you're over-weighting is
| that this is not a third-party stranger but a third-party with
| whom you have a legal relationship -- the use-cases for a CDN
| require external termination, otherwise you don't rent one, and
| the contracts commit to keeping it secure.
|
| For a business, there are tons of trust relationships you
| handle this way: you trust Microsoft not to ship a trojan in
| Windows, Cisco/Juniper/etc. not to sniff your internal network
| traffic, Google not to ship your Chrome session keys back home,
| etc.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| >you trust Microsoft not to ship a trojan in Windows
|
| Speak for yourself, mate.
| acdha wrote:
| a) it was one of multiple examples b) do you personally run
| a business this way and, if so, how's that working out
| relative to the competition? My point was simply that all
| businesses have some parties they trust on the theory that
| they'll sue if a contractual agreement is broken. It's too
| expensive not to trust _someone_ when you have no
| reasonable basis for expecting an attack and a solid legal
| basis for compensation if they did: if you dislike
| Microsoft, substitute Apple or Samsung, your bank, etc.
| polote wrote:
| I know that Cloudflare is always very liked on HN and the CTO
| often comments here. I often refer to friends that Cloudflare
| only exists thanks to HN. But Cloudflare is not (neither HN) the
| center of the world you could have better than R2 with B2 before
| for example.
|
| And no they didnt disrupted anything. You dont disrupt anything
| in one week actually. Has R2 had any impact on S3 business model
| or customers so far ? Probably not.
|
| Not saying Cloudflare is a bad company, I believe it is one of
| the few (maybe with Stripe) that is able to still work as a
| startup even though they have thousands of employees, which is
| quite impressive. But the article is clickbait
| greatsaas12 wrote:
| I think calling it clickbait is too harsh. The right headline
| would be: "Cloudflare announces 3 changes which have the
| potential to disrupt 3 industries in the near/long future". So
| it's somewhere in the middle between "totally describing what's
| inside" vs. clickbait-y.
| nuerow wrote:
| > I think calling it clickbait is too harsh. The right
| headline would be: "Cloudflare announces 3 changes which have
| the potential to disrupt 3 industries in the near/long
| future".
|
| That's still quite the stretch. A pricing update to not
| charge egress fees for object storage and some types of
| streaming is hardly "disruptive", as is catering to the web3
| buzzword.
|
| I like Cloudflare, but these marketing blurbs start to eat
| away the goodwill that Cloudflare's technical progresses earn
| with their hard and quality work.
| lozenge wrote:
| Note, the author isn't affiliated with Cloudflare. It's not
| a marketing blurb, this is how people actually talk in SV
| apparently ;)
| greatsaas12 wrote:
| Doubt there's an affiliation. The whole article is
| written from a perspective of how founders can use these
| features to build their MVPs faster (curious how nobody
| in the comments mentioned this).
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > A pricing update to not charge egress fees for object
| storage and some types of streaming is hardly "disruptive"
|
| Hum. Do you think the largest cloud providers can
| outcompete that without completely changing their business
| plans?
|
| Egress costs are always described as the ultimate cloud
| moat, and the main way those companies lock their clients.
| I do think there is enough space to disagree here
| (personally, I have no idea), but the mainstream view is
| that it fits the (econ-)dictionary definition of
| disruptive.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| Calling it clickbait is generous
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The R2 disruption is a reduction in cost. The target of the
| disruption is Amazon, a company that has decades of
| experience operating services at break-even or loss to
| acquire market share.
|
| Quite a lot of the coverage seems founded on the idea that
| the price difference is an unbridgeable moat for Cloudflare.
| IMO, let's see. Amazon could lower prices, and/or Cloudflare
| might need to start charging someone something as volume
| grows.
| nightpool wrote:
| If Amazon has to remove egress fees to compete, wouldn't
| that be a pretty significant disruption to the industry as
| well? The author's argument isn't that Cloudflare is going
| to take S3 out of business, it's that _removing egress fees
| makes a whole new class of applications viable_. I don 't
| see how the S3 removing egress fees as well would change
| that argument--it would still be Cloudflare that pushed the
| storage industry to this new place. In fact, S3 having to
| remove egress fees to compete would be probably be
| _greater_ evidence for Cloudflare 's disruptive effect :P
| wpietri wrote:
| This definitely isn't a disruption in the academic sense of
| the term: https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-
| innovation
|
| But even in the casual sense I don't think it's disruptive.
| They've introduced a competing service at a modestly lower
| cost. This won't put AWS out of business. Customers won't
| switch away en masse. It even won't make a noticeable dent
| in AWS's quarterly revenues.
|
| So this isn't disruption. it's bog-standard business
| competition. Which I very much welcome.
| [deleted]
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| I think you are underestimating what it could do when
| they have a complete cloud offering.
|
| And since there are no egress fees, there is no barrier
| to use a competing product that does something better.
|
| It's like they are launching without vendor lock-in. So I
| do think it's disruptive, not based on costs alone.
| x0x0 wrote:
| It's more than modestly lower though in some use cases.
|
| https://twitter.com/quinnypig/status/1443028078196711426
|
| Corey compares the cost of storing 1gb of data in s3 vs
| r2 and serving it to the internet:
|
| > _If 1 million people download that 1GB this month, my
| cost with @cloudflare R2 this way rounds up to 13C/. With
| @awscloud S3 it's [$53,891.16]_
| WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote:
| Agree obviously but I think the message is conveyed about what
| is interesting.
|
| They are competing everywhere CDN, Zero Trust / EdgeSec, Edge
| Computing, Hosting, etc...
|
| Anyone can think of any good historical good case studies on
| companies doing this in the past? Like becoming oversaturated,
| not focusing on one thing enough, or just growing like wild
| fire across spaces?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| They seem to be massively diving into anything that can be
| computed/stored on the edge, and/or can benefit from a high
| performance network behind that edge. Which makes sense.
|
| Also, they make quite smart choices. An example of one very
| smart choice is that they don't do Docker for cloud
| computation, only Javascript/WebASM, and that means they can
| spin up code in Isolates in V8 that's much more lightweight
| than having all the infra needed to do Docker.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Having said that, said smart choice is also an alternative
| source of lockin, given their egress charges are minimal.
| acdha wrote:
| > And no they didnt disrupted anything. You dont disrupt
| anything in one week actually. Has R2 had any impact on S3
| business model or customers so far ? Probably not.
|
| Cloud egress costs are the primary lock-in mechanism for cloud
| providers and that's been recognized as such for many years.
| This isn't the kind of thing which changes an industry in less
| than a week but I doubt you will want to defend this claim a
| year from now -- Cloudflare is an established, rather popular
| company which many large organizations already trust and this
| gave them either significant savings or a big negotiating
| crowbar.
| manigandham wrote:
| Cloudflare has always had free bandwidth and you can point
| the origin to whatever you want, including Backblaze which
| has free interconnect and cheaper pricing.
| acdha wrote:
| > Cloudflare has always had free bandwidth and you can
| point the origin to whatever you want.
|
| Not completely: if you used a ton of bandwidth (especially
| non-HTML/JSON) they'd want you to switch to a paid plan.
|
| Using an arbitrary origin server is similarly different,
| too: that means a lot more traffic coming back to your
| origin server unless all of your clients are located right
| next to each other hitting the same edge node. The
| mechanism they built to do an on-demand copy from S3 to R2
| once and serve all subsequent requests from the replicated
| R2 copy should use substantially less bandwidth and will be
| faster for all of the requests received from clients which
| are closer to one of the R2 replicas than your origin
| server.
| Strom wrote:
| > _Cloudflare has always had free bandwidth_
|
| Only for HTML content. [1] That is the real disruption
| here.
|
| --
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682885
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| You could say the same about Tesla.
|
| But cloudflare is able to scale fast at least.
| input_sh wrote:
| > I believe it is one of the few (maybe with Stripe) that is
| able to still work as a startup even though they have thousands
| of employees, which is quite impressive.
|
| You wouldn't call it impressive if you had to wait >24h for a
| support response as a user with an enterprise package. I'd call
| it quite the opposite from my experience with them at my
| previous job.
| verisimi wrote:
| I see Cloudflare as part of the system of control of the
| internet. They can prevent sites from being seen or users from
| accessing the internet.
|
| I also suspect that their business model is the mafia protection
| racket - that they may run some of the bots that commit DDOS
| attacks - it would be in their business interests.
| atdrummond wrote:
| Why is this downvoted? I understand the second paragraph might
| be slightly aggressive/inflammatory but the first paragraph
| alone is a legitimate critique.
|
| I would really appreciate if those who disagree would provide
| counter arguments, as both sides here offer the potential for
| an interesting (and important) dialogue about CF and their role
| in global Internet/WWW infrastructure.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| The second paragraph is more than "slightly aggressive" in my
| mind and it ruins the post. It is a wild theory based in no
| information at all. Cloudflare has a pretty coherent business
| model already.
| verisimi wrote:
| Thank you. I appreciate you saying that the second paragraph
| is aggressive, but I think it would be naive to think that it
| isn't possible, or even probable - if there's money in play.
|
| A lot of anti-virus protection companies did do exactly this
| - create the viruses that made their products sell. Its
| really not without precedent.
| atdrummond wrote:
| I didn't personally find it aggressive, I was just
| attempting to understand the motivations of your down
| voters.
| [deleted]
| meowface wrote:
| >it would be naive to think that it isn't [...] probable
|
| It's _probable_ that Cloudflare is a sophisticated criminal
| enterprise maliciously DDoSing prospective and existing
| customers so that they sign up for their (typically free)
| DDoS mitigation service?
|
| It's possible, but this weird logic of "if there's an
| incentive to do something bad, then someone's probably
| doing something bad" - with absolutely no evidence to
| support it whatsoever - is the logic of conspiracy theories
| (e.g. 9/11 = inside job, Sandy Hook shooting = hoax,
| COVID-19 = fake virus to control the public).
| nsonha wrote:
| Why pick on Cloudflare, what is it about edge computing that
| makes them particularly well positioned for this kind of
| abuse and AWS isn't?
| nightpool wrote:
| "What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed
| without evidence". If someone is going to make the claim that
| Cloudflare is running an illegal protection racket and funds
| DDOS attacks against their customer's websites, then the
| burden of proof is on them to substantiate that claim.
| Otherwise, it's just pointless bad-faith remarks. And we
| can't just take the first paragraph in isolation--it depends
| on the second paragraph for logical support. How could
| Cloudflare prevent any non-Cloudflare site from being seen,
| or prevent any non-Cloudflare users from accessing the
| internet? There is no requirement that anyone use Cloudflare
| --they just happen to be the best game in town. If you
| believe otherwise, you have to assert _arguments_ that
| support your position, you can 't just state your thesis and
| expect people to guess what your reasoning is.
| atdrummond wrote:
| As far as I can tell, he:
|
| 1. Never claimed this is actually happening - just that
| it's a possibility he's considered. I don't think that
| these kinds of ruminations are so odious and dangerous as
| to necessitate them being hidden or removed from view.
|
| 2. Never claimed it was illegal. In fact, I'm certain the
| operation as described by OP would be legal (in many
| jurisdictions) unless there was another component involved,
| such as identifiable price gouging.
| verisimi wrote:
| We're not in court.
|
| But, as I said elsewhere, I think it is pretty
| understandable corporate behaviour that has been done
| previously by anti-virus companies.
|
| Why would you not take an opportunity like this in order to
| create a drama where you are the corporate hero, and have
| people knocking down your door for your product?
| Waspdotmk wrote:
| This Web3 thing is huge. Definitely a cutting edge company
| lazyeye wrote:
| Cloudflare is the good guy now promoting the growth of the
| decentralised web.
|
| In a decade or two theyll be the bad guy putting up walls and
| centralising it.
|
| Weve seen this cycle before.
| wackget wrote:
| The article's not entirely accurate. It says the storage
| bandwidth fees are "totally elimiated" but that's not true:
|
| > R2 will zero-rate infrequent storage operations under a
| threshold -- currently planned to be in the single digit requests
| per second range. Above this range, R2 will charge significantly
| less per-operation than the major providers.
| ignoramous wrote:
| Poor man's R2 is already here. Up and running in form of
| _Workers KV_ ($5 per million writes, $0.5 per million reads, $5
| per 10GB), which can store blobs upto 25MB. Front it with
| _Workers Bundled_ ($0.5 per million calls proxied) and it
| quickly gets real close to what one 'd pay for R2.
|
| And no, unlike Amazon with Lightsail, Cloudflare is okay with
| anyone bypassing bandwidth charges when using the _Workers
| Bundled_ [1].
|
| [0]
| https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/platform/pricing#k...
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20791605
| heymax054 wrote:
| That was the top comment on this HN thread:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28702997
|
| The reply was: "Per operation charges, even if at the same
| level as EC2, would still be substantially cheaper."
| jacobwg wrote:
| R2's final pricing isn't yet announced, but my understanding of
| the quoted section is that R2 will charge for storage
| operations (API calls), what S3 calls "Requests & data
| retrievals" on their pricing page [0]. But _egress_ (bandwidth)
| fees, which can be the most costly component of an S3 bill, are
| totally eliminated.
|
| S3 -- Charges for amount of data resident on disk, amount of
| data retrieved, and each API call
|
| R2 -- Charges for amount of data resident on disk and some API
| calls (over a threshold). No charge for data retrieved.
|
| [0] https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/
| mikevm wrote:
| I can't wait to read the small print when it comes to actual
| egress bandwidth pricing. I can't believe it's going to
| actually cost zero dollars for all use-cases.
| pantulis wrote:
| How can they possibly nullify the bandwith costs?
| x0x0 wrote:
| extensive peering arrangements
| tylerrobinson wrote:
| Indeed, the specific terms will be really interesting to watch.
| Even if the per-operation fees are high by comparison after
| that threshold, it could still result in a huge savings for big
| file downloads.
| latchkey wrote:
| ethereum [sic]
| devit wrote:
| They claim R2 is only free for infrequent access, and the storage
| price is still really expensive compared to the cost of hard
| disks, so the potential for disruption seems quite limited.
|
| There seems to be potential for big disruption only if downloads
| aren't counted as operation in "Above this range, R2 will charge
| significantly less per-operation than the major providers".
|
| Based on the release it seems the thing that would be most
| disrupted is storage and distribution of huge files (one download
| operation, huge egress bandwidth), which would result in it
| mainly being used for Mega clones for paid piracy.
| brightball wrote:
| Article doesn't even mention their dip into email with SPF, DKIM
| and DMARC record builders. After spending a long time in that
| industry, I've always thought a solution that was fully
| integrated with the DNS provider was the ideal.
|
| They are just getting started with the record builders but
| there's a huge potential runway if they want to take this to its
| natural finish.
|
| IMO Cloudflare poses the biggest danger to a company like
| Valimail or Redsift that relies on DNS automation for their
| solution.
|
| Integrated providers like Mimecast probably don't have anything
| to worry about. Nor would expertise driven companies focused on
| consulting, deployment or IT education like dmarcian IMO.
| sdze wrote:
| Thumbs down to centralisation.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| any announcement that conflates a decentralized web with
| cloudflare is premature at best and likely downright misleading.
| Distributed Gateways explicitly have CF as the central
| clearinghouse for all communication.
| davedx wrote:
| "Cloudflare has announced their "Distributed Web Gateways" which
| should solve these problems. Developers will interact with HTTP
| calls, which CloudFlare will translate to PFS or Ethereum
| functions, while adding Cloudflare added-value services on the
| HTTP side."
|
| CloudFlare is well on its way to becoming the western version of
| the Great Firewall of China. Centralizing All The Things.
|
| Except instead of censorship, it'll be used to make sweet cash
| dollars.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| A centralized distributed web gateway is truly disruption.
| adventured wrote:
| > Welcome to the Web 3.0, where your software is decentralized
| and your users' data truly belongs to them.
|
| Nope.
| SrslyJosh wrote:
| > Web 3.0 also unlocks the Metaverse, a place where we trade in
| crypto and have NFTs as intellectual rights.
|
| "Say the line, Bart!"
| leetrout wrote:
| Author if you are here you have a typo where you say web 2.0
| instead of 3.0.
|
| Tried to comment on the article but I guess I need an invite to
| indie hackers and I don't know anyone :D
| greatsaas12 wrote:
| Looks like it was fixed.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| This author is clueless.
|
| All three of these things were already free.
|
| None of these things are industries.
| opheliate wrote:
| I would love to know where I can get free cloud storage
| equivalent to S3.
| slig wrote:
| Scaleway has 75GB for free every month [1].
|
| [1]: https://www.scaleway.com/en/pricing/
| rudian wrote:
| Probably the misconception comes from "unlimited hosting"
| providers, which are a lie.
| moffkalast wrote:
| They've already disrupted facebook, run!
| nrook wrote:
| Cloudflare really is impressive. Who can forget when they
| disrupted the retro emulation scene, by protecting the website
| that drove a prominent emulation developer to suicide? Or when
| they disrupted Isla Vista by serving the sites where Elliot
| Rodger was radicalized?
| rudian wrote:
| One thing that concerned me is that CF kicked a few "bad
| actors" off their network
|
| One could argue that they have the right and/or duty to do
| that, but being closer and closer to a "internet backbone"
| provider, this can become scary.
|
| Would you like water to be cut off to "bad actors"?
| nrook wrote:
| This is a convenient ethical construction for Cloudflare:
| "Sure, our customers did terrible things, but really, the
| real lapse would be if we didn't accept money from them!" But
| it doesn't hold up. While everyone needs food and water,
| nobody needs a CDN.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I think as long as they were given State-supplied acting
| lessons, it would work.
| acdha wrote:
| Those situations aren't analogous: if the water utility cuts
| me off, my options are things like drilling a well, trucking
| in water, or moving. If Cloudflare declines not to do
| business with me, there are many competitors around the world
| who I can switch to at varying levels of service depending on
| how much control I want.
| maxk42 wrote:
| I worked for one of the "bad actors" that was terminated by
| Cloudflare. To this day they have not provided anyone with a
| reason for the termination. To my knowledge, the site in
| question was not breaking any terms of service and when I
| asked customer support why the account had been terminated
| they pointed me to the clause that said something to the
| effect of "Cloudflare may terminate an account for any reason
| or no reason at all."
|
| They also refused to provide a refund. I will never use
| Cloudflare again nor recommend them to any of my clients.
| moralestapia wrote:
| The big question I have regarding R2 (for those no in the lops:
| Cloudflare's alternative to S3 with no egress fees (!)) is if the
| terms hold if you choose to use it to host video. If yes, then
| wow, this truly is disruptive.
| CodesInChaos wrote:
| There is another possible pricing loophole: They could price
| the amount of data loaded from R2, regardless if it's for
| internal use or egress (similar to S3 infrequent access, but
| cheaper). If they go that route, they'd probably make it per-
| request for small request, and by-size for big requests.
| yawnxyz wrote:
| That's a good question, I wonder how that will play along with
| their Video Streaming service. I guess this wouldn't be hosted
| streaming, but a downloadable video file, so they'd have
| different use cases.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >I wonder how that will play along with their Video Streaming
| service
|
| Yeah, that's my main concern, are they really going to
| disrupt even themselves?
|
| >wouldn't be hosted streaming, but a downloadable video file
|
| I agree but then if one can just add a <video src=""> and
| forget about it (plus, it's free) then streaming wouldn't
| even be considered (for plenty of use cases).
| grogenaut wrote:
| streaming is usually just a lot of little 2s video files.
| tejohnso wrote:
| > if the terms hold if you choose to use it to host video
|
| Pretty damn disingenuous if the terms don't hold based on type
| of content. There's no such caveat mentioned.
| handrous wrote:
| You're already gonna be _encouraged_ to move to an Enterprise
| ($5k+) account if you use too many resources, and /or if too
| much of your traffic is from non-browser clients, and
| probably for a bunch of other reasons I don't know about it.
| The terms under which this may happen are essentially arcane
| knowledge learned through experience. Think about it: if this
| weren't the case, every other CDN would already be out of
| business, rather than rapidly expanding and acquiring and
| growing.
|
| Plus, you don't get an SLA for any of their "self-serve"
| plans until the $200/month one.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I honestly think it'll get flooded with bad actors and they'll
| be forced to set limits (e.g. download rate limits, which
| probably wouldn't be in their best interest since it'd occupy a
| connection for longer).
| avidal wrote:
| Cf has really mature trust and safety as well as security
| teams and tools. I've no doubt they've taken bad actors into
| account considering all of the other offerings they have that
| have also attracted bad actors.
| distantsounds wrote:
| Yeah, 8chan definitely weren't bad actors and Cloudflare
| definitely didn't have to make a PR statement about booting
| them from their services.
| adventured wrote:
| No question. They've been dealing with that factor at hyper
| scale for many years now. The only question is how they've
| already decided to go about it.
|
| They'll certainly want to make a big splash with the
| product, given the cloud giants they're taking on. That's
| better done with fewer limitations initially, even if they
| know ahead of time the various ways they'll restrict abuse
| over time.
| greatsaas12 wrote:
| Seems like these announcements were part of Cloudflare's
| "Birthday Week"[1]
|
| More features that weren't mentioned by OP:
|
| - CF released an email routing feature
|
| - They released their domain name registrar (you could previously
| only transfer, but now you can also register domain names) using
| wholesale prices. I'd also classify this as a "disruption"
| because CF is not taking any profit with this one (but they have
| a lot to gain in terms of data if you route your domain traffic
| through them.)
|
| [1] https://www.cloudflare.com/birthday-week/
| innocenat wrote:
| The registrar service has been here for some times, but
| previously you need to transfer domain in instead of register
| new domain.
| greatsaas12 wrote:
| Yep, was aware of this, but forgot to mention it. Edited the
| comment, thanks!
| decrypt wrote:
| One thing that most folks aren't aware is that Cloudflare
| registrar requires usage of their nameservers. It's
| understandable, they are selling domains without a markup and
| need to make money in other ways. For those that want to use a
| custom nameserver, Porkbun is a great choice.
| gnat wrote:
| What is their business model around having your DNS traffic?
| Selling your "who looked you up and how many times" data? I
| am struggling to see what secondary income this enables.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| to own all the eggs
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| It makes it extremely easy (and therefore more likely) to
| use CloudFlare as a CDN/DDoS protection. Just a simple
| toggle, if they're your DNS server.
| [deleted]
| dvh1990 wrote:
| There are special risks involved when relying on novel, market
| breaking features: Your offering will be dependent on that
| feature remaining available AND cost effective.
|
| If the company ups the price or removes the feature altogether
| then you will be left without an edge.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-04 23:02 UTC)