<story><title>Docker closes $40M Series C led by Sequoia</title><url>https://blog.docker.com/2014/09/docker-closes-40m-series-c-led-by-sequoia/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>sillysaurus3</author><text>This means Sequoia expects Docker to either go public or to be acquired for at least (10 * $40M &amp;#x2F; sequoia_ownership) in order to be considered a &amp;quot;win,&amp;quot; right?  (A &amp;quot;win&amp;quot; in the sense of being worth the VC&amp;#x27;s investment, not in the sense of being valuable to the world.)&lt;p&gt;The reason I say this is because a VC who merely breaks even on investments will eventually go out of business, so it would be a mistake to invest unless the expectation is that Docker might be a win for them.&lt;p&gt;Assuming Sequoia owns, say, 35%, then that comes to an expected acquisition price of about $1.15B for Sequoia to earn 10x their money back.&lt;p&gt;What are some hypothetical scenarios which end with Docker going public?  What are some scenarios where a company would acquire Docker for north of $1B?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not trying to imply anything about Docker with these questions.  Personally, I love Docker.  It&amp;#x27;s just fun to theorycraft.</text></comment>
<story><title>Docker closes $40M Series C led by Sequoia</title><url>https://blog.docker.com/2014/09/docker-closes-40m-series-c-led-by-sequoia/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>weavie</author><text>How are Docker monetizing their product? Is it just in hosting and support? By open sourcing Docker they have opened up the door to hundreds of competitors offering the same thing, often for a much lower cost? Is their only competitive advantage the fact that they own the project and thus understand it better and can dictate its course?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m sure they would make for a very interesting case study on how to do open source right.</text></comment>