Blog Post

NoSQL company Basho loses CEO and CTO

Basho, a NoSQL startup whose Riak database competes against the likes of Cassandra in scale-out environments, has lost its CEO Greg Collins, CTO Justin Sheehy and Chief Architect Andy Gross. In an interview with the Register, Sheehy said the departures aren’t as bad as they look and that the company is in good hands. Perhaps, although whoever replaces Collins will be the company’s fourth CEO since it was founded in 2007, and neither of the company’s co-founders remain. Basho has raised more than $31 million in venture capital, with its last funding round of $11.1 million coming in July 2012.

6 Responses to “NoSQL company Basho loses CEO and CTO”

  1. Not as bad as it sounds? Maybe if just one of them had left but that’s the entire technical and company leadership jumping overboard at pretty much the same time.

    Basho/Riak have had a very aggressive strategy with converting users of other NoSQL databases over to their product very publicly but I can’t imagine there are many big users compared to the clear winner, MongoDB. They’re just at a completely different scale.

    • Sam Bessalah

      I hope You mean scale in the number of users. Because itechnically speaking, Mongo doesn’t even begin to compare to Riak and most of the products around it from Basho.
      Mongo is popular among developers, and some companies, who some just try to build new products quickly. But it comes with a lot of shortcomings at scale. Shortcomings, that the likes of Riak and Cassandra have been working to solve from the beginning.
      Still sad to see the great leadership team of Basho leaving in droves like that. I wonder if this isn’t another one of those VC’s coup, before they sell out the company.

  2. Regardless of what Sheehy says publicly this is not a good omen for Basho and Riak. Thus, there is wisdom in not investing too soon (time, resources, money, attention etc) in these burgeoning new technologies, such as NoSQL systems, despite the tech media orgasms about it and the statistically rare bleeding edge risk takers who use systems like Riak such as the good guys at Braintree.

    • Another example NOSQL is just hype. If it’s such hot deal then why can it not profit? Just think of one NOSQL company making truck loads of money like Oracle or MSFT do w/ their data solution. There’s none. Folks, when you are bombarded w/ all the “growth / future” promise of certain technology and yet you don’t see the hard result to back it up you know you are listening to snake oil salesman pitching.

      • Gaëtan Voyer-Perraul

        So I think context is really important here. SQL Server (Sybase) and Oracle and IBM have been at this for a _very_ long time. And when they built databases, they were building the very first generally available Database systems. They basically had a combined stranglehold on a market they created.

        And in the last decade they have slowly been undercut by things like SQLite, MySQL and PostgreSQL. Of those, only MySQL really managed to sell to a bigger fish and that bigger fish basically went bust and sold to Oracle :)

        But if NoSQL is really “just hype”, then it’s been happening for a long time. Take a company like MarkLogic that has been in business for over decade. Of course, they are closed source and having to compete with the likes of MongoDB, Riak and Cassandra who all have open source tech. Of course, regardless revenues, we’re all expecting Hadoop to stick around right? And things like RabbitMQ and Redis are probably going to make it out of the decade still in use.

        I think we need to be clear about the “snake oil” part in this whole equation. The businesses themselves may be overly competitive. There are likely too many open source DBs currently competing for a dwindling share of “services and support” dollars.

        However, this doesn’t mean that the products themselves are “snake oil” and doomed to failure. The products are actually valuable contributions to an increasingly diverse DB eco-system the will provide the “bits” we need to make better systems in the future.