Because they significantly innovated beyond the core lucene library to solve a major pain of their customers around scaling, analytics, etc., providing customers with extra value.

Amazon appear to be only making minor tweaks to the software and commoditising its running, capitalising on their entrenched audience. It's easy to see why Elastic are annoyed.

> Because they significantly innovated beyond the core lucene library to solve a major pain of their customers around scaling, analytics, etc., providing customers with extra value.

And they've decided that this extra value could be given away for $0, or they wouldn't have released this under an open source license.

> Amazon appear to be only making minor tweaks to the software and commoditising its running

They may be "minor tweaks" but apparently they have a lot of value for some people. I don't particularly care for them and run my own ES cluster. Just as enabling TLS and basic auth are "minor tweaks", but this is what Elastic charges for.

But if there are a non-negligible number of companies using the managed ES service, it means that it has at least some value and that it's good enough compared to the Elastic Cloud offering (I personally don't know how they compare, just that I find both expensive).

This value has been offered by AWS before Elastic's offering. Only now that "not enough people" want to buy the managed Elastic Cloud is it an issue.

To me, these are separate products. Sure, there would be no managed AWS ES without Elastic's product. But Elastic's cloud offering is something that came afterwards, and to me only this particular offering (the managed ES) competes with AWS's offering.

Now, it looks like Elastic will get the worst of both worlds. I only use ES for the logs and needed the authentication. I couldn't really justify the platinum tier just to get SSO, so we made do with basic LDAP. But now that Open Search has those features for free? I don't really have a good reason anymore to stick with Elastic's onerous plan. And no, I've never once called them for the "support" part of the offering, so I'm not really losing anything there.

Yeah AWS ES totally has value. I'm aware ES decided to go with an open licence but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that they did that to try to gain traction and cross-sell other services, such as managed hosting.

If you have a friend round to stay for the weekend and say "stay as long as you want", wouldn't you be annoyed if they were still there 10 years later? There is such a thing as the spirit vs the letter of the law.

> it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that they did that to try to gain traction and cross-sell other services, such as managed hosting.

I sympathize with that, and would say that they took this chance and lost.

But again, what rubs me the wrong way is that AWS is not just selling a "packaged" version of ES for more money, the same exact thing that Elastic sells. They're selling the service around it. Which they built themselves. My client runs an ES cluster on a bunch of fairly fat EC2 instances, which would cost an arm and a leg if they went through Elastic Cloud. Are we the friend who's still there ten years later?

I probably still wouldn't agree with it, but I guess I would have less of an issue with this line of argument if it weren't just about ES but about every [Thing]Service that AWS sells, in particular RDS.

Hell, why is there no outcry about them selling EC2 instances with Ubuntu? Or even "worse", their "custom" distribution (Amazon Linux). Are they sending a check regularly to Linus and / or to the Linux Foundation (or whoever is in charge of Linux as a "product")?

This, to me, looks a lot like a sore loser situation. ES tried to take on AWS selling a service around a product and lost. I understand it stings even worse that said product is their product. But maybe they should've stuck to building an awesome service around Lucene that they could sell for profit. Wait... this sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I'm not saying this is a great situation for Elastic to be in. But I don't like the way they're trying to dance around it and not assume their errors. They wanted to build a second product (Elastic Cloud) around their first (Elasticsearch) and it failed to attract the expected success. Instead of asking themselves why that is, they decided to change the rules of the game. Now, they're of course allowed to do this, Elasticsearch being their product and all. But they can't expect for everybody to be on board with it. Maybe their product sucked compared to AWS' or simply wasn't good enough to warrant the hassle of going through a second supplier or whatever.

I think you nailed it in the last sentence. AWS will one day be able to extract near monopoly profits due to costs of migration.

I expect the ES didn't realise how popular it'd end up being so went open source, and later realised they'd shot themselves in the foot but knew they'd rub people up the wrong way if they went closed source so they kicked the can down the road... And here we are

Solr also addressed a lot of the same problems as Elastic, maybe not all of them. It was harder to configure but the documentation eventually got to be decent. That was some years ago. I don't know the state of things now.

> They built that value off the back of many other open source products

Would you opinion change if everything in Elasticsearch was in-house?

I think there is a broader question about spirit of open source licensing here. If I'm building a new DB from scratch, should I choose a true open source license and risk giving up competitive advantage in my ability to monetize it, over Amazon-like companies who have the benefit of brand and scale? Or is it okay to just make the code source-available, which is still better than closed-source?

I like the balanced approach some companies are adopting: make the code source-available initially and automatically transition to a open source license after N years.

Just remember that their valuation does not represent their free cash flow, whether they are profitable at all, etc. It could be that open sourcing something kills your profitability in the back, while boosting revenue.

Elastic is a public company, the financial information is readily available, so no need to speculate.

FY2020 revenue was 430 million, and they spent 220 million on sales and marketing and 165 million on R&D, the total being net loss of 167 million.

In this case, it's understandable that they need to improve their profitability, and laudable that they are not doing so by closed sourcing the product.

It is not an open source product anymore. Source is available, but this is not the same thing.

This is what OSI had to say about it: https://opensource.org/node/1099

"The Elastic projects were offered under the Apache license. Outside contributors donated time and energy with the understanding that their work was going towards the greater good, the public software commons. Now, instead, their contributions are embedded in a proprietary product. If they want to enjoy the fruits of their own and their co-contributors’ labor, they have to agree to a proprietary license or fork."

"Elastic’s current business model is inconsistent with what open source licenses are designed to do. Its current business desires are what proprietary licenses (which includes source available) are designed for."

My two cents.... trying to profit via the business of artificial scarcity on an open source project that's going to end up a commoditization anyway, is kinda crappy. If they offered support or implementations or a specific customization for profit, I get it. That way the people doing work get rewarded and people don't end up paying for access to a feature because it's a carrot being used to get money.