> The fact is, ‘Big Data’ is dead; the simplicity and the ease of making sense of your data is a lot more important than size.
... after which they go saying
> Cloud data vendors are focused on performance of 100TB queries, which is not only irrelevant for the vast majority of users, but also distracts from the ability to deliver a great user experience.
... and then
> Distributed architectures were once necessary to process many analytics workloads. That’s why several of us built Google BigQuery - distributing queries to hundreds or thousands of machines was the only way to achieve adequate performance. This is no longer true.
Given that they lay their foundations around DuckDB, essentially a SQLite pandan but for analytical workloads, it remains to be seen what type of service and workloads MotherDuck aim to target with the platform (DuckDB) which I think is deliberately purposed for non-cloud computing type of things.
I ask in all seriousness-- I'm still kind of new to this site.
The point that I think is worth emphasizing is not their funding but rather their assertion / premise that "The fact is, ‘Big Data’ is dead". Obviously an overstatement but the general point is: companies are being supported by reputable backers on the premise that Big Data is overhyped and other parts of the data eco-system are underdeveloped.
I considered giving it the same title as the article, and then just mentioning the "Big Data is dead" point in the first comment, but that seemed kind of roundabout and distracting to the point that I think is worth paying more attention to.
Happy to hear further suggestions given that background
>Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
