People who are busy working aren't going to rush to HN to post about how they understood the announcement and are reacting as needed.

People who are bored (like me) will post rants and accusations.

No need to try and reframe or defend a bad decision. The should be held to account.

I don't believe it was a miscommunication. Even if it was a company as important as Docker inc, mentioning DELETING containers requires some care and should raise some flags at any serious communications department.

This is not just the wrong date for a convention in the newsletter. What impact does it have on the ecosystem they've built? Some really serious projects use Docker and even if they have their own repositories can they be sure the software they rely on can keep publishing containers?

Even at the tiny startups I've worked on I'm asked to proofread any technical stuff they want to publish, I assume Docker does too.

Nomenclature nitpick: "deleting images", not "deleting containers". Images are what they host. Containers are running instances of an image.

This is why I believe that they changed what would happen after the pushback and are trying to hide that they changed.

In reality they were probably just going to disable access to updating all along and then maybe someday delete things, but didn’t want to say exactly that.

The thing is, if images are still accessible, then they still incur egress costs for Docker, thus negating the potential cost savings from this move.

So at best, they just tanked their reputation for... minimal cost savings?

Egress is (relatively) cheap and the amount of it will dwindle over time as the images become more and more "out of date".