BT

ZeroTurnaround Discontinues LiveRebel, Market not Ready for Release Automation

| by Carlos Sanchez Follow 0 Followers on Sep 09, 2014. Estimated reading time: 2 minutes |

ZeroTurnaround has announced the discontinuation of their application release automation product, LiveRebel, claiming that the release automation market is not big enough because it is not one of the top problems that teams face, and there is no clear picture of what release management should be.

According to Jevgeni Kabanov, ZeroTurnararound CEO, who we interviewed last March, there are two main reasons why the mid-market was not very good for them.

Firstly, there is no agreement on what release management should even look like:

Continuous Delivery and DevOps movements had some ideas, but the approaches were wildly different. Virtual images, microcontainers, configuration management and build servers were all used for release orchestration. Even then, our typical competitor was still just a bunch of bash scripts with a wiki.

And secondly, release management was not anywhere near the top problems for a typical potential customer:

Release management provides little value if you don’t have automated builds, provisioning and a well-defined release process and unfortunately most potential customers would have none of those.

After version 3.0, just released at the beginning of 2014, the company had it clear that the market conditions were not good for the product:

The deals we were closing were folks who have solved these issues, but stopped short from scripting out their release process or were for some reason unhappy with their scripts. After the LiveRebel 3.0 release, which removed most other reasons the deals wouldn’t succeed, it became increasingly clear that current market conditions do not support the sale of LiveRebel as a product.

InfoQ has talked to Jevgeni Kabanov about his opinion on the market:

Do you imply that the higher market with over hundreds of servers is more receptive to orchestration solutions? is it just because the volume or the multiple heterogeneous environments?

I believe so, but not because of the volume of the environments. Rather, larger companies are used to putting rigorous processes in place and can decide to standardise on one customised solution throughout the business. The lack of established process is what kills the opportunity in the mid-market more than anything else.

Did you find that larger companies had automated builds, provisioning and a well-defined release process, and not the smaller companies? Or is it a matter of being a newer company or startup, that does not have to deal with so much legacy, vs established companies?

It depended heavily on how organised the company was. It depended much more on the industry than on anything else. E.g. SaaS companies would typically be more organised than almost anyone else, because both their development and their operations are business critical. The less important IT was to the business, the less attention would the delivery process get.

Given that you mention that your typical competitor was still "just a bunch of bash scripts with a wiki", do you think more lower level tools like Rundeck will win over tools like Puppet or Chef that forces people to learn a "new way" of doing things?

I think there are multiple segments in that market and it will accommodate all kinds of tools. It is hard to think that e.g. a highly regulated financial institution ran by MBAs, a tech startup in the Bay Area ran by 19-year old and a steel mill with outsourced IT will all need the same solution. Processes vary greatly and technology must follow suit.

ZeroTurnaround focus is now dedicated to the development tools market for the near future, building technologies centered around developers and continuing with their JRebel and XRebel products.

Rate this Article

Adoption Stage
Style

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or or login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Tell us what you think

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

The market is ready, and Jevgeni Kabanov consciously lies by John Carlson

Of course the market IS ready for Release Automation!

The truth is that LiveRebel was an awful, closed-source, expensive and impossible to expand tool.

As a matter of fact, the DevOps movement is spreading very quickly: no doubt that the Market is moving in that direction. LiveRebel was just the wrong tool.


DevOps are not stupid: there are a lot of amazing, open-source tools like Ansible, Salt, Puppet, and Chef and they have preferred them to the idiotic GUI of LiveRebel and it's ridiculous API. LiveRebel sucks, it's bugged, slow, impossible to script and closed-source.

No surprise that LiveRebel died while Ansible, Salt, Puppet, Chef and Docker and a lot of other tools that make Release Automation possible are among the most successful and rising projects ever.

Re: The market is ready, and Jevgeni Kabanov consciously lies by Jevgeni Kabanov

Yep, you got me, I'm a liar. It says so right on my Twitter profile.

Re: The market is ready, and Jevgeni Kabanov consciously lies by Fadzlan Yahya

I think the issue here is that tools like Ansible, Salt, Puppet, etc is basically a drop in for the orchestration if you need orchestration.

If you need container, you have docker. None of the solution for DevOps currently is one size fits all, since everyone have different needs and rules in their org.

If you try to do something that capture more than just one piece of the process, any org will have problems fitting in the solution, unless its totally a new company. Then again, even with a new company, they might have different opinion on how to do things as big as release management.

The current idea with the current generation of DevOps tool is that you can mix and match as you see fit. Anybody trying to come up with a solution that is one size fits all, IMO, will limit their market to their current way of doing things.

Unless of course, if your company can do what IBM do, and slaps DevOps to a lot of their product and convince their customer that its godsend and change their process to fit the tools (which is always a bad idea).

**rant
IBM kinda make me not like the word DevOps, since they just hijack the word if it makes sense to their imagination. An issue tracking tool? Sure, that is DevOps too, why not? Helped the sales guy didn't it?
**end rant

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

3 Discuss

Login to InfoQ to interact with what matters most to you.


Recover your password...

Follow

Follow your favorite topics and editors

Quick overview of most important highlights in the industry and on the site.

Like

More signal, less noise

Build your own feed by choosing topics you want to read about and editors you want to hear from.

Notifications

Stay up-to-date

Set up your notifications and don't miss out on content that matters to you

BT