They may, but that doesn’t mean that the capacity disappears. It may require some assumptions about USG willingness to backstop an acquisition but it’s not a significant leap to think that the generation capacity remains in (more capable?) hands.
Point well taken. My comment was primarily based on two other factors:
a) the strategic signal it sends re developer resource allocation and
b) the market signal it sends, selling a security solution while partnering with a company (not a knock - I've been a mullvad customer!) that provides solutions which are frequently used to bypass compliance/regulatory controls.
I appreciate the response - great blog post. I don't doubt this works for certain companies and components of the ecosystem; it worked for Dropbox (at least for a long time).
Tailscale is clearly a superior product to it's competitors and I have regularly recommended colleagues and clients to evaluate whether it fits their needs. However, unfortunately, that is frequently not enough to "win" in the crowded and bureaucratic enterprise software space.
I would love to be proved wrong here and wish you the greatest success!
I love tailscale's technology and their contributions to the security ecosystem, but I can't help but take a contrarian angle to many of the comments here...
This feels like a bad idea, and perhaps it signals defeat in the enterprise space (where the tech would provide the most value, imo). Tailscale raised $100M last year, surely based on a theory of growth upmarket. While this partnership surely provides value to personal consumers, it feels, at best, a distraction from the larger opportunity and, at worst, counterproductive to achieving it.
I'm skeptical of the obvious counterpoint that this assists a flywheel of greater b2c satisfaction leading to b2b success...