Datadog acquires Quickwit
Datadog’s acquisition of Quickwit, an open source distributed search engine used for large-scale log storage, is seen as a move to address self‑hosted and regulated use cases while potentially lowering Datadog’s own infrastructure costs. Commenters welcome Quickwit and its Tantivy engine being relicensed under Apache 2.0, but many are skeptical that Datadog will continue investing in the open source project and worry about innovation slowing or the product effectively becoming a competitor kill. The thread also surfaces broader dissatisfaction with Datadog’s opaque, high pricing and aggressive sales culture, alongside recommendations for alternative open source observability and logging stacks.
Planned Use of Quickwit by Datadog
- Many infer from Datadog’s announcement that Quickwit will underpin a self‑hosted or “logs stay in your environment” model, aimed at regulated industries with data residency constraints.
- Expected model: logs stored in customer infra or regions, accessed via Datadog’s UI, likely billed per‑GB but cheaper than shipping all logs to Datadog.
- Some speculate Datadog may also use Quickwit internally to cut infra costs or as a defensive move to remove a direct OSS competitor.
Open Source Status and Licensing
- Quickwit had been moving toward an enterprise license but will now relicense as Apache 2.0, along with its Tantivy search library.
- Many are happy about the more permissive license but expect the original team to shift focus to a closed Datadog product, with less day‑to‑day work on the OSS version.
- Vector is cited as precedent: originally OSS and acquired by Datadog; some claim it stalled, others (including Datadog employees and users) say it’s actively maintained, though at a measured pace.
Innovation, Ecosystem, and Alternatives
- Several posters lament that multiple innovative databases (Warpstream, OrioleDB, Quickwit) have been acquired, fearing slower innovation once inside large companies.
- Others argue acquisitions can expand reach while OSS projects like Tantivy remain usable and extensible (e.g., ParadeDB, pg_search).
- Alternatives suggested for object‑storage‑backed or OSS logging/observability include Loki, SigNoz, qryn, and VictoriaLogs, with substantial criticism of Loki’s complexity, config churn, and high‑cardinality limitations.
Perceptions of Datadog’s Product and Pricing
- Technically, Datadog is widely regarded as a top‑tier observability platform, particularly for APM, tracing, and profiling.
- However, many report aggressive, intrusive sales tactics, opaque and unpredictable billing, and extremely high prices for logs and custom metrics.
- Some describe Datadog as highly sales‑driven and liken its behavior to legacy enterprise vendors; a minority report positive, low‑pressure sales experiences.
Customer and Community Concerns
- Teams that recently migrated to Quickwit are frustrated and worried development may stagnate, though Quickwit’s OSS status means it can be continued or forked.
- There is concern for companies that built on Quickwit (e.g., large‑scale logging users), but also an expectation that demand could sustain a community fork if necessary.
Funding and Acquisition Dynamics
- The blog’s mention of rising traction and VC pressure for a Series A sparks debate about VC incentives.
- Some argue early funding structurally pushes toward hyper‑growth or exit; others note Quickwit’s seed was via SAFEs without board control, and the acquisition decision was not forced but taken at a perceived strategic crossroads.