That's a whole lot of rationalisation about how it's not an 'open core' model where text actually supports that it, in fact, is open core. Not that it matters.
I'm sorry if the post looks defensive, my only goal is to have a further discussion about possible models, and how "open core" requires some thought about is real essence, and how IMHO an "added value" model also exists.
Well you are free to have your opinion about my post, but for me it's a different matter: while I believe that who does "open core" has all the right to do it, and I hope they'll have all the success, I don't think it's always the right model. In the case of Redis, imagine if any HA would be in the closed part, that is, Sentinel and Redis Cluster. The applicability of Redis as free software would be more limited, because in order to work well an open core strategy really needs to take away from the party something really valuable. So I think that an "added value" strategy works better. It leverages the delta between what users (or even more interesting, what enterprises want), and the developers of the product do not. For instance Redis directly queried by JSON is IMHO the least interesting thing to do, yet a lot of people want to do that. Similarly a CRDTs store with the Redis data types is great, even if it ends not being Redis from the POV of latency, memory metrics and so forth. That's my point, one strategy is to take something, remove an important part, and force a subset of people to buy. The other is instead to develop in the OSS a complete product, and focus on offering additional things that different subset of users really would like to see because they have vertical needs here and there.
Don't worry, man. I'm not reading 'deep into it'. It's a simple matter of interpretation of open core, where you represent stance of open core being features taken out and monetised, where other represent stance it's added value on top of core functionality. And the wording seems to mix both in your representation, namely what constitutes core features and what's added value. A thought experiment could clear all that out - what would it change in rationale if Redis Labs was not associated with you in any way?
