The recent monetization strategy for Maven Central has been bizarre.
First it seemed like they want to encourage reducing usage (release sizes and file counts), which is fair. It would still be better focus on improving the default tooling to not producuce 10x checksum files with each artifact, and 6MB+ javadoc bundles that no-one reads, but that's a little beside the point.
Then they started requiring paid plans for _all_ publishers that are not purely community projects. Doesn't matter how open it is, if it's backed by a commercial company, they require a paid plan.
Now, in principle I don't mind paying for usage. But they promised self-serve signups before the limits are applied, which didn't happen - still no self-serve plans available. And the "contact us" pricing is too a large extent based on _popularity_ of the package. And not in a quantifiable way like "x GB downloaded", but rather "within the top 2% of usage" (by whatever hidden metric).
So if they lose half their publishers because they don't want to pay, it means I'll automatically be in a higher bracket next year, even if nothing changed on my side?
And the pricing ends up in a couple thousand $ per year, for something that would have been single-digit dollars when self-hosting on S3. When their main value add over that is that Maven Central is automatically present in user config.
> The recent monetization strategy for Maven Central has been bizarre.
Well, someone gotta pay the bills and it is not surprising given that they began to squeeze Sonatype Nexus operators for money a few years ago.
The core problem is that sooooo much of the core infrastructure we assume as "given" is in fact not owned and operated by a non-profit NGO (such as e.g. Codeberg is) but by a commercial company.
Sonatype operates Maven Central, NuGet, Github and NPM are run (into the ground) by Microsoft, Gitlab is funded by its commercial arm and, assumedly, a lot of venture capital that eventually wants to be returned to the investors, Sourceforge always was infamous for how they monetized (while the majority of the actual hosting cost was borne by universities LOL). The only major artifact repository I'm aware of that is not backed by either big corporate or NGOs and not tied to some Linux distribution is PHP Composer's Packagist that has a commercial arm, but no venture capital.
And in the end, the real issue at the root is that internet traffic, especially egress traffic, still is absurdly expensive, and the behavior of people like Sam Altman that sent RAM, SSD and even HDD prices through the roof is making the situation even worse.
So, so much negative side effects have been caused by just this one human. Sam Altman is nothing short of Thomas Midgley Jr.
> I would assume they primarily serve static files that can be on a cdn
And someone gotta pay that CDN bill too.
On top of that come all the requests from CI pipelines that don't have a repository proxy at all or have it misconfigured, the AI scrapers and other bots, or DDoS skiddies wanting to take responsibility for taking down a major hoster.
First it seemed like they want to encourage reducing usage (release sizes and file counts), which is fair. It would still be better focus on improving the default tooling to not producuce 10x checksum files with each artifact, and 6MB+ javadoc bundles that no-one reads, but that's a little beside the point.
Then they started requiring paid plans for _all_ publishers that are not purely community projects. Doesn't matter how open it is, if it's backed by a commercial company, they require a paid plan.
Now, in principle I don't mind paying for usage. But they promised self-serve signups before the limits are applied, which didn't happen - still no self-serve plans available. And the "contact us" pricing is too a large extent based on _popularity_ of the package. And not in a quantifiable way like "x GB downloaded", but rather "within the top 2% of usage" (by whatever hidden metric).
So if they lose half their publishers because they don't want to pay, it means I'll automatically be in a higher bracket next year, even if nothing changed on my side?
And the pricing ends up in a couple thousand $ per year, for something that would have been single-digit dollars when self-hosting on S3. When their main value add over that is that Maven Central is automatically present in user config.
Well, someone gotta pay the bills and it is not surprising given that they began to squeeze Sonatype Nexus operators for money a few years ago.
The core problem is that sooooo much of the core infrastructure we assume as "given" is in fact not owned and operated by a non-profit NGO (such as e.g. Codeberg is) but by a commercial company.
Sonatype operates Maven Central, NuGet, Github and NPM are run (into the ground) by Microsoft, Gitlab is funded by its commercial arm and, assumedly, a lot of venture capital that eventually wants to be returned to the investors, Sourceforge always was infamous for how they monetized (while the majority of the actual hosting cost was borne by universities LOL). The only major artifact repository I'm aware of that is not backed by either big corporate or NGOs and not tied to some Linux distribution is PHP Composer's Packagist that has a commercial arm, but no venture capital.
And in the end, the real issue at the root is that internet traffic, especially egress traffic, still is absurdly expensive, and the behavior of people like Sam Altman that sent RAM, SSD and even HDD prices through the roof is making the situation even worse.
So, so much negative side effects have been caused by just this one human. Sam Altman is nothing short of Thomas Midgley Jr.
Are they paying for significant egress? I would assume they primarily serve static files that can be on a cdn
And someone gotta pay that CDN bill too.
On top of that come all the requests from CI pipelines that don't have a repository proxy at all or have it misconfigured, the AI scrapers and other bots, or DDoS skiddies wanting to take responsibility for taking down a major hoster.