This is a space where you can compete on operational complexity. Mesos and Kubernetes are fairly complicated to set up and run, with dependencies and intricacies that Nomad just doesn't have.
From your other comment:
> I do find it ironic that they talk about how nomad is for microservices and then make a dig at the several microservices that k8s is made up of.
Being for microservices doesn't mean you should be a microservice. Kubernetes your control plane involves 5 services (Kubelet, proxy, Docker, replication controller, etcd) that need to be up and running before you even have started an app. Then the question is what happens to your system if one or two of those go down, or if they become bottlenecks, or need to be upgraded, and so on.
Having evaluated both Mesos and Kubernetes, Nomad is a lot more attractive to me due to its simplicity and "turnkey" approach.
Not all bottlenecks scale linearly (and "bottleneck" was just one of several words I used). I'm sure Kubernetes is well-designed and battle-tested, but to most developers these are black boxes that need to be studied and learned, each with its own set of complexities and workarounds and warts. And so on.
Moving parts are moving parts no matter how well they are designed. More of them always add complexity, by definition; they never reduce it.
From your other comment:
> I do find it ironic that they talk about how nomad is for microservices and then make a dig at the several microservices that k8s is made up of.
Being for microservices doesn't mean you should be a microservice. Kubernetes your control plane involves 5 services (Kubelet, proxy, Docker, replication controller, etcd) that need to be up and running before you even have started an app. Then the question is what happens to your system if one or two of those go down, or if they become bottlenecks, or need to be upgraded, and so on.
Having evaluated both Mesos and Kubernetes, Nomad is a lot more attractive to me due to its simplicity and "turnkey" approach.