Had a look at their website [1]. Initial thoughts: this is a bit ridiculous, I can just build that myself. And in fact, I have done already.
Thoughts after about 3 minutes of browsing: OK, this actually makes sense and I see why people would pay for this. The value proposition is definitely there
Thanks, "I could build that" → "oh, that's what the other 90% is" is pretty much how Unleash started for us too. What does your homegrown version do? Always interested in where people draw the line between building and adopting.
I haven’t used unleash but it’s pretty clear your characterization is wildly wrong. 30 seconds looking at docs shows it has features for gradual rollouts, A/B testing, experimentaion with analytics, authentication to control available features, and probably a lot more I missed in a quick skim.
Are most feature flag systems really just simple Boolean checks like this with no feedback loop? In 2009 Amazon’s equivalent supported multi-variate flags (run test with more than 2 options), a feedback loop for performance/attribution, and
weighting. I don’t see any of that on the unleash home page, but also haven’t seen it in other feature config systems either.
What you are describing is usually part of analytics platforms (Mixpanel, etc.). A feature flag toggle only plays a small part in this (but it may also be used for a lot of other scenarios of how you may want to control feature flags).
Audience is decided by analytics tool -> Feature flag server maps audience to feature flag value -> Analytics tool tracks its events and includes feature flag value as attribute
We have automatically generated readouts that run hourly and daily, show metrics between control and variant across a ton of core business metrics, and we can even opt into measurement of some super esoteric stuff.
Granted we have a whole team supporting just that experimentation platform, but it's pretty cool. They even expose an MCP server for us to have agents do experiment analysis for us using.
A million monthly active users, even free ones, would cost you ~$10K/month on LaunchDarkly. A million sounds like a lot, but "active" can mean one visit, even anonymous users. ~$120K/year for feature flags is a ridiculous line item.
These SaaS companies are only valued this much because they charge based on MAUs, not request-based. I prefer PostHog's model. 100M requests/month is ~$2K [*].
Launch Darkly charges on volume across multiple dimensions, including MAU and server-side connections, plus log, trace and error counts. It's bonkers and anyone who can actually predict what it will cost (good luck) will run away as fast as they can.
There is no way a Feature Flag system is a multi Billion dollar company based on the tech, and if there IS a Saas-pocalypse it's coming for players like LD first.
Unleash started in 2014 as an internal tool at my company at the time, because we wanted to ship to production continuously without big-bang releases. It's an Open-Source feature flag platform with SDKs for >25 languages.
A few design choices that might be interesting:
- Local evaluation: server-side SDKs fetch the flag config and evaluate in-process, so user data never leaves your app and a flag check is a memory lookup, not a network call.
- Shared Rust engine (Yggdrasil): the evaluation logic is written once in Rust and embedded in the SDKs, so behaviour is the same across languages.
- Unleash Edge: a Rust proxy/cache for frontend and edge clients at scale. (Commercial)
- OpenFeature: supported if you don't want to lock into our SDKs.
Configuration as a Service companies must be a having a tough time these days...
I couldnt imagine a lot of teams are debating anymore whether to build their own or use an off the shelf product like this. The former being a straight forward task for an LLM. And the latter being a point of failure/attack for any one want to mess with the core foundations of a product.
Companies as well as people are still happy to pay for the second S in SaaS.
Building something, updating it, running it, testing etc. still requires resources and attention. One example for this would be taxis. You pay for the comfort of not having to drive the car, do maintenance, take into account road works, cleaning, etc. and not because you couldn't drive a car yourself. That time you can use instead to focus on your actual business.
At a certain scale (probably bimodal distribution) it makes sense to have a provider you can shrug it off to and point the finger to when things are missing features or the system goes down, etc etc. On the big-co end of that spectrum I think you are right and AI makes this stuff easy to launch internally.
The owner at my current gig has multiple times said "software is over" as it being a sort of gravy train of rent seeking. Products are gonna have to offer real / significant value to attract new customers. Maybe even to keep them, too...
>> and point the finger to when things are missing features or the system goes down
This sounds good in theory but - and I speak from experience with a FF system causing a system-wide outage - clients don't care why YOU had an outage, or that it's not immediately your fault, and they really shouldn't have to. The reality is more like you're paying for a dependecy that you can't mitigate.
Thoughts after about 3 minutes of browsing: OK, this actually makes sense and I see why people would pay for this. The value proposition is definitely there
[1] https://www.getunleash.io/
I haven’t used unleash but it’s pretty clear your characterization is wildly wrong. 30 seconds looking at docs shows it has features for gradual rollouts, A/B testing, experimentaion with analytics, authentication to control available features, and probably a lot more I missed in a quick skim.
Audience is decided by analytics tool -> Feature flag server maps audience to feature flag value -> Analytics tool tracks its events and includes feature flag value as attribute
Granted we have a whole team supporting just that experimentation platform, but it's pretty cool. They even expose an MCP server for us to have agents do experiment analysis for us using.
These SaaS companies are only valued this much because they charge based on MAUs, not request-based. I prefer PostHog's model. 100M requests/month is ~$2K [*].
[*] I'm not affiliated with PostHog.
There is no way a Feature Flag system is a multi Billion dollar company based on the tech, and if there IS a Saas-pocalypse it's coming for players like LD first.
Unleash started in 2014 as an internal tool at my company at the time, because we wanted to ship to production continuously without big-bang releases. It's an Open-Source feature flag platform with SDKs for >25 languages.
A few design choices that might be interesting:
- Local evaluation: server-side SDKs fetch the flag config and evaluate in-process, so user data never leaves your app and a flag check is a memory lookup, not a network call.
- Shared Rust engine (Yggdrasil): the evaluation logic is written once in Rust and embedded in the SDKs, so behaviour is the same across languages.
- Unleash Edge: a Rust proxy/cache for frontend and edge clients at scale. (Commercial)
- OpenFeature: supported if you don't want to lock into our SDKs.
I couldnt imagine a lot of teams are debating anymore whether to build their own or use an off the shelf product like this. The former being a straight forward task for an LLM. And the latter being a point of failure/attack for any one want to mess with the core foundations of a product.
Building something, updating it, running it, testing etc. still requires resources and attention. One example for this would be taxis. You pay for the comfort of not having to drive the car, do maintenance, take into account road works, cleaning, etc. and not because you couldn't drive a car yourself. That time you can use instead to focus on your actual business.
The owner at my current gig has multiple times said "software is over" as it being a sort of gravy train of rent seeking. Products are gonna have to offer real / significant value to attract new customers. Maybe even to keep them, too...
This sounds good in theory but - and I speak from experience with a FF system causing a system-wide outage - clients don't care why YOU had an outage, or that it's not immediately your fault, and they really shouldn't have to. The reality is more like you're paying for a dependecy that you can't mitigate.
The only appealing marketing I've seen in the past three years