A PHP framework just raised a bunch of money
Laravel's $57 million raise marks a pivotal moment in the tech landscape, pushing the boundaries of what's possible in PHP development and redefining how we build applications.
The frameworks that are currently raising money are doing so at impressive levels, with some raising as much as $50 million. The primary goal is to encourage new developers to adopt these frameworks. While the frameworks are open source, there is a suggestion that developers should consider using the paid platform.
Recently, I was surprised to see Levels criticizing the PHP world, particularly Laravel. This criticism seems unexpected, especially since Laravel just raised $57 million to support the development of their new platform. Initially, I believed that the Laravel ecosystem was self-funded and thriving, with reports of success like "Lambos and whatnot." However, it appears that Taylor's ambitions extend further, prompting him to seek funding through Excel, a leading venture capital group that invests in open-source technologies and the future of tech platforms. Excel is also a significant investor in Vercel, which adds context to the situation.
There has been a lot of discussion and memes about Laravel building something akin to Vercel but specifically for PHP. Now, this has become a reality, and I wanted to take a moment to discuss its implications, especially since I expected this news to garner more attention. While 4K likes is a substantial number, this announcement signifies a significant shift that I haven't witnessed in a while.
To understand this better, I would like to share a bit of my history regarding how I ended up on Vercel and the origins of Vercel itself. Then, I will delve into what this means for Laravel. It’s worth noting that this video is not sponsored by Vercel, although it does have a sponsor—thank you, Raid: Shadow Legends. If you are interested in sponsoring videos like this and reaching this fantastic audience, feel free to contact us at YouTube.
Laravel is often referred to as the PHP framework for web artisans. In simpler terms, it is the best way to deploy PHP applications in modern times. The ecosystem is admittedly vast, with plugins and packages available for almost any functionality you might need. It offers a solid all-in-one solution, particularly with tools like Livewire, which allows for page updates from PHP code without the need for custom JavaScript, or Inertia, which acknowledges the power of client-side JavaScript.
Despite the challenges posed by the three-letter word that often intimidates many, Laravel remains a great framework, and I understand why it has garnered such a large community. So, why are they raising money? Laravel has already introduced products like Forge and Vapor, which assist in managing, deploying, and scaling Laravel applications. However, it appears that Laravel Cloud represents a significant advancement, as they aim to redefine how we approach application development.
In their announcement, they stated, "The future of Laravel is more than just features; it's redefining how we think about building applications." They believe that Laravel is the most productive way to create full-stack web applications and that the Laravel community deserves a world-class experience for shipping, scaling, and securing those applications. Ten years ago, Forge changed the game, and five years later, Vapor expanded the possibilities with serverless deployments. Now, they are aiming higher than ever before, having spent over a decade listening to developers' needs, which can be summarized simply: they just want to ship.
Similarly, the future of Next.js is also about redefining the application-building process. The Next.js community deserves a world-class experience for shipping, scaling, and securing applications. A decade ago, Vercel (formerly Zite) changed the game with its innovations, and five years later, they pushed the boundaries of serverless deployments and edge computing. They, too, are now aiming higher than ever, having spent years listening to developers' desires to simply ship their projects.
I sincerely hope that the PHP community can find common ground with the JavaScript community, as we have made significant strides. I have made a conscious effort not to be overly critical of PHP, especially after learning about Inertia, which exemplifies a strong understanding of strengths and weaknesses. It has been exciting to witness developments such as when Taylor Otwell was featured on Dax and Adam.
Developers want to focus on shipping their ideas, not getting bogged down by infrastructure headaches. Embrace a future where your tools work for you, not the other way around.
In the ever-evolving landscape of technology, scaling and securing those applications has become a critical focus. A decade ago, the introduction of Zite changed the game, and now, five years later, we are pushing the boundaries of serverless deployments in Edge Computing. Our aspirations are higher than ever before. We have spent years listening to what developers want, and it’s simple: they just want to ship.
I really hope that the PHP world can align with the JavaScript world because we have been doing quite well. I have made a conscious effort to not be overly anti-PHP, especially after learning about Inertia. Inertia is a fantastic representation of understanding one's strengths and weaknesses. It has been exciting to see discussions, such as when Taylor Otwell appeared on the Dax and Adam podcast—whose name I unfortunately forgot—where he expressed his frustrations. He specifically mentioned that he has issues with the way that DHH presents things, as DHH seems to imply that no client-side JavaScript is necessary. Inertia allows developers to do the right thing when building applications, and it was disheartening for Taylor to see someone on the same side as him be so misguided.
This situation exemplifies why I appreciate what Laravel is doing. They acknowledge that they are not the best way to build user interfaces and interactive experiences. Instead of pretending otherwise, they make it easy to pass props from the server to the client. This means you can write client-side code in Vue, React, or whatever you prefer, while still having access to the props received from the server. This is really cool stuff. If you want to build a scalable service that includes everything while still using the traditional client-side JavaScript you know and love, Laravel offers a great solution.
Additionally, I want to acknowledge the podcast called Tomorrow FM. When comparing their discussions to what DHH has been saying recently, it’s quite amusing. There’s no more wasting time on DevOps minutiae—yes, that’s a made-up word, but it captures the essence of the frustration. There’s no more tinkering with server configuration files, load balancers, or database backups. With LEL Cloud, those headaches are a thing of the past. This is no longer a dream; it’s a reality.
LEL Cloud is a fully managed infrastructure platform built for developers and teams who just want to ship their next big idea. It is relentlessly optimized for Laravel and PHP. With Laravel Cloud, you are not just deploying code; you are embracing a future where infrastructure works for you, not the other way around. Features like autoscaling, DDoS protection, and standard push deployments are included. The databases, such as Laravel Serverless Postgres, scale on demand, and you only pay for what you use. This is not just another tool; it’s a new standard.
It’s easy to see why they raised VC money; this is one of the most VC-friendly initiatives I have ever encountered. However, I must mention that I found one aspect of their rollout a bit sketchy. They hosted LaravelCon, a major event with numerous influencers, to announce LEL Cloud, but they did not disclose until afterward that the funding came from a VC. This felt somewhat disingenuous, especially considering the PHP community has long expressed concerns about venture capital involvement.
If we want to discuss a framework that was open source and built a lot of positive sentiment before transitioning into a business model that sells services to facilitate deployment—while also raising venture capital—this situation fits that description more than Vercel does. The history with Vercel is a bit more intriguing in my opinion. NEX did not start with a grand vision for the future; it began because building React apps was more challenging than it should have been, lacking essential components. Even when using tools like Create React App, managing your web package configuration was a miserable experience. That was the main reason NEX started, alongside the ability to statically generate parts of your pages, avoiding the same empty HTML template for every request.
Innovation often stems from solving real problems, and the best solutions are born from the challenges we face in building.
The sentiment that then became a business sold services to make it easier to deploy their products and raised Venture Capital Money in order to do it. This fits that bill more than Vercel did. The history with Vercel, which I probably should have mentioned before, is a little bit more interesting in my opinion.
Nex didn't start because they had this grand vision for the future; rather, Nex started because building React apps was harder than it should be and it was missing a couple of pieces. Even if you used things like Create React App, managing your web package was miserable. That was the main reason Nex started. The other significant factor was the ability to static generate parts of your pages so that you didn't have the same empty HTML template for every route, which was essential for improving SEO.
Nex was built to dynamically generate the different pages for your website, handle all of the web hack stuff for you, and let you just write React the way you were used to. Once they had all of that done, they realized that deploying your React apps was harder than expected, especially if you now had a server-side dependency on it. They created what was called Zit, which was a Docker image deployment platform. Then they got serverless-pilled and went all in, leading to what has now become Vercel.
If you watched as it happened, all of these steps made sense. They tried to make managing your React app easier and get SEO working with Nex as a way to solve that problem. By the way, G. Ro, who created that, also created Socket.IO. Socket.IO became the standard for WebSocket stuff because it worked even without WebSockets, which was remarkable. Many developers still use Socket.IO in production; it has become the standard, and all of the alternatives try to be Socket.IO compatible because of its quality.
G. Ro's goal was always to solve problems that made building modern web apps harder, and deployment was one of them, which is why he created Zit. Initially, it competed with products like Digital Ocean and then transitioned to focus on serverless solutions, ultimately becoming the Vercel we now know and appreciate.
When you follow that history, you realize that it lines up almost perfectly with what we're seeing with Laravel Cloud. There are very similar paths, with the difference being that the specific problems were a bit more defined on the Vercel side, while Laravel aims to solve all the things. Both are taking a similar path and ending up in a comparable place.
The main reason I wanted to discuss this is that it feels strange that people have been complaining about things like the Vercel team and the Vercel company raising a bunch of money and paying influencers to talk about them, while the exact same thing is happening in the PHP community. I don't think it's bad in either case, but those who believe it's bad in one instance and not the other are delusional.
It's exciting to see more great frameworks, products, and teams getting the funding they need to potentially change how we build software forever. I genuinely love that. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going to call out the people who pretend that this is acceptable while criticizing Vercel. If anyone has a good justification for why they think Vercel is evil and Laravel is good despite doing the exact same thing, I would love to hear it. It just screams contradiction to me that the community that has been most vocal about VC money affecting the direction of open-source projects is now heading in this direction too.
To be fair to Taylor, he has always been great about these things. I've never seen him as particularly problematic regarding any of this. In fact, I have been very impressed with Taylor. Every conversation we've had, every interview I've seen with him, and every comment he has made aligns well with my views. He seems to understand the industry well.
I find him to be someone who, if you tone down the brain rot that often comes with this field, can focus that mental energy on actually shipping products. Taylor's approach is commendable, and I like him a lot.
I'm genuinely excited to see where they go. It's cool to see Vercel not just investing in the JavaScript world but also diversifying and ensuring that all these ecosystems have the same potential. However, I want to make one more counterpoint: I started using Vercel before I ever used Nex because it was the easiest way to deploy JavaScript-based web apps. That was a huge advantage for me.
I don't necessarily see that same ease of use with what they're building with Laravel Cloud. I cannot imagine many, if any, Laravel Cloud users utilizing it without using the Laravel framework, which is interesting. But we'll see where that goes because I could be entirely wrong.
What do you all think? Is Laravel evil now, or was everyone overreacting about the VC stuff in the first place? I'm hyped about this and see a bright future for all of these products and infrastructure. Ultimately, if the result is that people can ship what they're trying to ship faster, I'm cool with that. Until next time, peace nerds!