The announcement is high on promises, low on detail.
Wordpress is only 20 years old, and whilst it’s currently a viable company there’s no guarantee that they will be so in another 20 years.
As for 100 years? Sorry, not buying it (both figuratively and literally): we’ve already seen a huge change in technology that has already deprecated many a tech stack, and that change is only increasing in velocity.
$38K is a huge sum to put down when there’s zero actual proof they’ll even be able to sustain this for 25 years, let alone 100.
$38k is a huge sum, but the problem is, it’s not enough. $1USD in 1920 inflated to roughly $15USD here in 2023. The same thing is going to happen, by design, between now and 2120.
This approximates to a pyramid scheme; or maybe, the US Social Security system is another great correlate. The only way it keeps going after even only ten years is raising prices for new customers subsidizing existing customers.
I'm worried it might be too low as well, but we did a ton of modeling and tried to build in a quantum of safety for unknown unknowns. I expect this will cost more in the future.
They could invest that money and use the returns to fund development.
That’s not going to happen, but such a small percentage of customers would sign up for this it’s effectively a non issue for the viability of the company.
Honestly, I think some regulations requiring some kind of independent trust should be required for any ‘lifetime’ subscriptions. Sorry we uhh renamed the product, your subscription is no longer valid. Sure, then refund my money.
Getting 38k now is very different from getting 38k over a 100years.
It’s worth exactly as much as it states.
Investing this money now might be beaten by inflation, competition or happenstance. But it could also grow the business and turn into orders of magnitude more value.
I agree however that Wordpress does not have such a long term prospect.
As of now, it’s both falling behind and moving into wrong directions at the same time from a technical perspective:
It’s increasingly more complex and unstable for non-technical users.
It’s bloated, full of gotchas, very hard/finicky to integrate with standard PHP tooling and has comically bad performance. So it deters developers.
It won’t go away anytime soon. But I very much doubt that it will be as relatively popular in even 10y as it is now.
And I would not bet against http, html and fundamental E/R databases. Http and html evolution can be managed by Wordpress inc. The database migrated.
I am worried that a cobol/VB style like decline of PHP is too much for the company. Because maintaining PHP is most likely very costly. But I might overrate this.
Except PHP isn’t dead - in fact it’s probably going through a renaissance.
The language and tooling have improved a lot over the last few years - to the point where starting a new CRUD web project using Laravel is a good default choice unless you have very special requirements.
I presume it's (Lavarel) a good default choice for someone active in PHP. Like many people, PHP was my first programming language, and I migrated away from it long ago. What's relevant for me is:
* How many new developers are picking up PHP
* How many remain using it after say 10 years
* How many end up contributing to its tooling and ecosystem
If those numbers are good in absolute terms, then I agree with you.
I'd consider Perl to be a dying language, not PHP. I'd also expect an active language's tooling to improve over the years, so that probably doesn't stand out too much for me (there's brilliant people working in various languages, in PHP I consdier Nikita Popov as one of them).
The fact that there are new and exciting things happening has nothing to do with whether the language is becoming less popular/relevant/adopted. Almost any index or ranking for programming languages you can find, TIOBE, stackoverflow survey and even Google Trends show that interest in php has been declining and not coming back. That is just the reality, and nobody is going to care if some part of the language or ecosystem improves.
Is that because its relative share is declining or because the absolute number is declining? The former indicates they are capturing as much of the new growth in devs, the latter there is an approaching problem.
Disclaimer: I'm a Wordpress plugin developer and my opinions are my own.
This is a really weird offering from Automattic and IMO the price is pretty insane. I would love for Automattic to actually focus on Gutenberg/Wordpress and get it in a decent state for development. They're at major version 16 and continue to push breaking changes to peoples page layouts. They've made countless decisions that just plan don't make sense. Until the past year I'd consider Gutenberg an abject failure; now, it is at least usable. There's a good reason its had a 1 star rating on the Plugin marketplace until a few months ago. It still doesn't have 5% of the feature set of something like Divi, Elementor, Avada, Salient or any of the other big names in WP themes/website builders. Elementor is so massive people sell themes built for it! I think it is incredible what Matt has accomplished with WP and his vision is admirable but I think its time for him to step aside and let Automattic find someone else to lead and refocus on their core product.
Hi, can you perhaps explain what Gutenberg, Divi, Elementor, Aveda, and Salient do?
Just a curious party without much knowledge. I hosted WP on a VPS maybe a decade ago. I wasn’t very skilled with it but my friends needed a site. I forgot about it for a while and I guess it wasn’t at the time evergreen/self-updating and eventually it was used to send a lot of spam emails somehow. That’s about the extent of my knowledge of WP. I tried building a simple static site generator once on that same VPS where you could have HTML page headers and footers and page content templates, and it worked fine for me, but I tried to get a non-tech user to use it and they could not, and were ecstatic after I finally suggested that they try WP.com - they loved it.
Gutenberg is attempting to be a Frontend / UI style site editor (example here: https://wordpress.org/gutenberg ). An amazing example of this type of editor is Webflow. Lesser examples include Square Space and Wix. What these other plugins, Divi/Elem/Avada/Salient, do is provide professional templates that allow users to build from along with a visual editor. These push WP output, that is what is rendered in your browser, from simple blog to an actual website experience. They also all provide something similar to what Gutenberg does but they built it 10 years ago on the original WP PHP backend (Gutenberg is all React). WP pushing to Gutenberg has actually kind of screwed them a bit, but I digress. You can think of them, and Webflow imo, kinda like photoshop for websites, or maybe Figma for web development. They allow designers to learn a tool instead of CSS / JS. What I think the WP theme builders really excel at is getting something that looks modern and fast really really quickly. I'm happy to talk about the market and who buys licenses for the WP theme builders but this post would be a book! haha.
Vanilla WP is excellent for beginners who aren't trying to do anything fancy, in fact I think its one of the best things to ever happen to the web. Yes there are exploits etc but that comes with all software. But most other software doesn't run something like 30-40% of the web though so their bugs are really magnified. Same goes for the WP plugin theme builders I mentioned above.
Thanks. This is quite helpful context. (As for myself I used to write quite a bit of PHP; haven't touched it in some time but I'm rather fond of the language. I don't know anything about React, I think I built a tic tac toe tutorial once. I like the idea of htmx but mostly I do back-end development these days.)
Just one question as an aside: Would you recommend self-hosting WP these days?
I am curious about the market and who buys license for the theme builders also, but only if you would care to write about that.
I totally can provide as much info as you'd like about it but would probably be better off forum. Shoot me an email xzel at protonmail.com . Still going to add a bit here but like I said there are so many companies that exist in slightly different niches in this massive space it would be a small novel.
Generally the people who buy licenses for these products are either people who want to make their own website with WP and stumbled upon the website builder tools or, more significantly, agencies or single person companies who are making a lot of websites for small businesses. Lots of restaurant, small businesses, etc need simple websites that look good, have the info there they need, are editable without blowing up and don't want to spend a lot of money. So they will pay 400-1000 dollars to their web dev who buys a website builder license with part of it. He will know the ins and outs of the tool (like my photoshop comparison earlier) and can whip up pretty unique but "gets the job done" website on the cheap with the tooling that provides a huge amount of short cuts. Basically these tools allow beginner / non-super technical designers or web devs to short cut most of the coding, as I said before. Someone like Elementor, probably the biggest company in the space, is used by a huge number of people and businesses big and small.
On the hosting front, there are a lot of good and cheap hosting options these days. Self hosting is so much better than its ever been as PHP security and in general VPS security is a lot better that it was in the past. I don't want to recommend someone specific for paid for hosting because we may have contracts with hosting partners and like the previous post these opinions are my own and I like to keep my HN posting separate from my business but I'm more than happy to talk about that via email as well. Wowzers that was a run on sentence. Hope this helps!
That is really great context. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand this all.
I'm going to bookmark your post so I have it now. This is all interesting and exciting to think about, and it makes me think of "Should I perhaps set up another VPS?" and "Should I look into becoming a website builder using some of these tools?" or maybe "Should I learn about the WP plugin ecosystem and consider becoming a plugin developer?" and many more. I do know from past experience though that going down any of these routes could turn into something that is quite time intensive and quite likely would not yield immediate results (and my time is, at the moment, mostly spoken for, and I have a full-time job). Still, it is definitely something I am thinking about, and I guess another thought that came about after reading your post was: "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a low-or-no-cost (low-cost most likely) way for non-tech-people to self-host things?" A sort of community anti-cloud VPS thing. Maybe run by some devops folks for very cheap, with the option of providing support and resiliency features at some cost. You just made me think: The idea of a small business or restaurant needing a low-touch website with the capability to self-update it is of course a very good one that makes total sense. And taking it a step further, wouldn't it be neat if stores could run their own online shopping sites without the need to pay someone like Shopify the large amount they do, and if restaurants could run their own delivery logistics without restoring to DoorDash, Uber Eats, or Skip the dishes? I guess I lean to the free open-source direction and envision a tech community that could keep wiki docs on how to self-host these things and the folks who ran them could update the docs as needed, and write code as needed, and so on. I don't know if what I'm saying is at all realistic; I just like a few things you have said, like Vanilla WP being one of the best things to happen to the web; I am guessing it just gives so many people the ability to have a nice website... I think it's a nice avenue of exploration and I am getting fed up with the centralization of all things web.
My opinion is that we should stop obsessing about storing everything and anything. It's unhealthy...we're accumulating too much. Almost everything on the internet is not worth preserving.
> What does that mean? By what measure is "too much"?
It already seems intuitive to me that people are far too obsessed about storing anything and everything, from photos to notes to random thoughts and more. To me it seems pathological. I saw one estimate that is around 500 exabytes already... it looks a lot like those people whose basements are full of unused junk, only in virtual form. I also noticed for sure that people keep way too much stuff they never use...I've rarely met anyone who doesn't. That certainly carries over to their virtual life too.
It's worth considering that we all get to individually assign value to something, and that value is mostly an opinion, which means it's not right or wrong objectively. There are certainly extremes like those who hoard, but just because others values some things more than you do doesn't make them wrong.
I agree in one aspect, but in another aspect, I disagree.
Humans have natural instincts which makes them hoard because that would have been adaptive in times of scarcity (i.e. our ancient past). Now, in times of surplus, that instinct is mostly maladaptive.
So I DO posit that humans on average place a higher value on hoarding than they should, and that if they actually took the time to override this basal instinct with higher brain functions, then on AVERAGE they would be happier.
I see it less as us storing too much, but rather that it's impossible for us to tell what will be truly of historical significance (and thus worth preserving) in the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years.
Think about it in terms of art. Social media has exploded with various digital artists of all kinds. With the tools available to us these days, I'd also posit at least some of that art in a few hundred years would be considered beyond even the renaissance masters.
However, the sheer amount of it available today compared to the past likely means most of it will be lost to history.
Taking the same logic in reverse, how many masterpieces in history were lost because they weren't important to store, or their creator went undiscovered for their entire lives?
The same can be said to all sorts of knowledge and insights. Given that digital media is largely some kind of knowledge storage, we'll likely lose a ton of those too.
It's worth it for historians and people curious about the past. We have lots of accounting and tax register and genealogies and war stories of ancient times, but too few stories from the common people. How their daily life were, etc. This is honestly a huge loss.
Now, the problem is that LLMs are polluting our digital record. It will become harder and harder to distinguish human text from bots.
It depends, of course, on your definition of value. It sounds a bit circular: if it is valuable, it will survive. If it doesn't survive, it isn't valuable.
For example, the public Norwegian broadcaster NRK lost its recordings of the moon landing (which was also the first night sending) [1], which I would consider quite valuable. Indeed, there is a long list of lost TV recordings from the early days of television [2].
Off the top of my head, thing of value that didn’t naturally survive (that we know about) would include Aristotle’s second book of poetics (completely gone) and most of Sappho’s poetry (of which only fragments survive).
Yes: the end of the library of Alexandria had virtually no impact on the preservation of knowledge.
The library of Alexandria slowly declined for various centuries, and was progressively replaced by dozens of libraries in the rest of the world. We don’t know how much of its materials was lost in time, but the key thing is that knowledge of that time was not preserved by libraries but by copies of documents. What we know from Antiquity is mostly due to scribes and monks who spend their life copying content, while libraries have been mostly useless for that purpose.
> For example, if you really think something is worthwhile, write a book instead of keeping it on Wordpress.
Why "instead"? Do both. Writing a book doesn’t really help preserving information: unless you’re really famous you’ll sell a few copies that will go lost, and in 10-20 years it will be impossible to find a single copy of the book. Plus a Wordpress blog is accessible from anywhere, while a book –again unless if you’re very successful– is usually distributed in one country only.
That’s an absurdly arbitrary difference buried in a value judgement informed by your own personal biases. And, beauty is not always in the eye of the beholder.
So what? Other personal biases stated here are that everything should be preserved...it's an opinion. If I wanted a place where incontrovertible facts were written down, I would publish a math paper.
Imagine if we found an ancient monastery hidden deep inside a mountain and containing 100 books. Then we found a note from the copyist saying that most stuff wasn't worth preserving so these are only the 100 books he liked the most out of 10,000
This is definitely interesting. At 7% annualised, those $38K would deliver around $33M over 100 years. Keeping a simple website up for those kinds of gains seems like a no-brainer. Hosting is cheap. Especially as most of these are going to be very low-traffic personal websites serving mostly cached static pages.
It seems like the best way to guarantee that something runs for 100 years, actually; build an investment fund whose mandate is to keep some basic websites up on a couple cheap servers.
Edit: Even if technology changes, that's just a maintenance job every year - keeping the underlying infrastructure updated. Some years it will be cheap, some years it'll be a bit more costly, but ultimately it's not impossible at all, especially if they've got a big number of clients (and thus a big fund to draw from).
By giving it to Wordpress, it's done, you don't have to think about it anymore, and whatever happens in your life, that content is staying up for those 100 years.
You're paying for the security / peace of mind, and I'm sure you can picture some people preferring to do that than to self-manage hosting content (and updating technology over time) for 100 years.
Edit: Having said that, I don't think Wordpress is the right fit for this. I think it should've been a separate company, with a separate brand and a separate legal structure that enforced keeping things up for 100 years and enforced using the investment profits to keep the content up and maintain the infrastructure even as technology changed.
None of those have gone away, you know. FM radio is still very much alive, vinyl is going strong. Mag tapes and incandescent lightbulbs are now niche; large companies that used mag tapes, still do, and incandescent light bulbs have a loop hole permitting their use in "heavy industry", which still uses them) — but they're still used in those spaces.
Point being that in 100 years, the webternets of today could indeed be comparable to the FM radio, but that doesn't mean there won't be people who want it.
I think the Internet is more like electricity vs vinyl. In the US at least, how we transmit electricity has been fairly consistent for around 100 years - a toaster from the 20s will still work today in the same outlets. I think the Internet, and html, will be the same - small changes over time but fundamentally the same.
I think that’s true, but those “small changes” end up being large enough that they practically require a human in the loop for maintenance. In comparison; you’re right about the toaster, as there are practically no changes which need to be made to an otherwise working toaster from 1920 to get it functional in 2023.
One small example: TLS. Years ago someone may have very reasonably asserted “my website doesn’t really matter, I don’t need encryption, it’ll run forever without SSL”. Then, the browser vendors universally made SSL practically required. Then; it became TLS, not SSL. Encryption algorithms change every few years. But; ok; maybe you can get some high mileage by automating integration with LetsEncrypt and praying they survive (and remain free).
A three line HTML Hello World is quite likely, I’d argue, to survive and still render in 2120, discounting nuclear winter and such. But to keep a three line HTML hello world WEBSITE hosted and running until 2120 with minimal human intervention would require many magnitudes more executing code automating interface compatibility with the changing world around it; and every line of code you add and expect to execute is a liability.
Imagine there were a "100 year magazine" where you submit 100 articles and each year a magazine is sent with your next article for 100 years.
It's easy to imagine how a service like that could have started in the 60's and how it could have moved (or copied itself) online when the internet came along.
I think the thought to be considered is whether we will still use computers or the internet in a hundred years in such a way that this kind of decision today would make sense.
We're already seeing a sharp decline in computer ownership, most people only have a phone these days.
There was a great 787 comment thread a couple years ago where people came up with all sorts of better ideas, but for 500 years. Trusts, physical archives, multiple languages, etching into various materials, shooting things into orbit, etc. And like all discussions then, blockchain. It wouldn't surprise me if that thread was the inspiration.
"A recent study by McKinsey found that the average life-span of companies listed in Standard & Poor’s 500 was 61 years in 1958. Today, it is less than 18 years. McKinsey believes that, in 2027, 75% of the companies currently quoted on the S&P 500 will have disappeared."
I guess the first obvious takeaway is that Wordpress themselves are likely to not exist long enough to honour this deal. There's also the issue that companies that offer lifetime deals typically only do it when they are extremely cash strapped and it's basically a gamble that the initial influx of money can tide them over until a more stable revenue stream can be found, at which point all those lifetime deals are liabilities that will forever suck the company's profits.
But from the other side, no personal blog is worth preserving longer than your expected lifetime, so this is presumably aimed at companies, especially given the price point. Very few companies will survive for 100 years, so they'll probably never see the benefit of this as the probability of both them AND Wordpress both surviving 100 years is even lower.
Then there's the pricing. Assuming the money could just be invested to break-even against inflation, and so you can consider this as $380 a year, that sounds excessive for a blog hosting platform. It's also more than their "Business" tier. That said, it's actually less than their "Commerce" tier and their "Enterprise" tier is $25000+ per year. I'm guessing they won't allow the latter to transfer to this deal, so it's hard to see who they actually think would even buy this.
$38,000 seemed like a bit much, but that works out to $31.66 a month. Still more than a typical hosting plan, but I guess the assumption is that hosting won’t be so cheap in 50 years.
I’d be curious to know what actual inflation is on hosting plans. Feels to me like inflation on budget-tier hosting is zero to negative, but that’s very subjective.
In any case, I’d expect to be able to host a bunch of century Wordpress sites for very very cheaply, provided you locked down plugin installation. Without plugins they’re a known security and upgrade profile, and I expect traffic on 99.95% of them to be effectively nil or highly cacheable.
To that end the price feels a bit outlandish to me.
> $31.66 a month for a wordpress hosting plan is an absolute rip-off.
Today, maybe. For the human costs of hosting support in 2123, given the cost of inflation, it might not be, and these plans include technical support.
(Although you could also that the technical support work on most of these 100-year plans should be dropping over time too - especially if the human being involved passes away. You could even argue that AI might be doing the technical support in 2123.)
Today for sure. But if someone twenty years ago said I could have 100 years of Starbucks lattes for $2/each, it would have turned out to be a great deal. It depends if hosting is affected by inflation or not.
I always wondered how I can keep the content I write on the web after death. I suppose the cheapest way is to save the entire content on archive.org (and donate to it!)
It seems daring to propose something like this, and I would really want to know about the guarantees that they thought to be able to do this.
In any case, any initiative for fighting link rot and keeping a healthy internet are really welcome. So in that regard, sharing their playbook with their learnings on how to guarantee 100 years of service could be an incentive for other companies to offer something similar.
I hope they release more details about this service, because the video is cool but there is almost no material information on the site.
I worry about my own organization being able to remember to renew its domain if we don't do it yearly. If I made a ten year payment, what happens in a decade if I'm no longer with them? Will they track down someone? Will the domain expire and get held for ransom?
Setting aside the weirdness of making a 100 year commitment with a 20 year old company, what really does happen a century from now? Will anyone know whose responsibility it is?
As someone who has hosted personal content and files for a quarter of a century, continuously, I'd trust individuals or a not-necessarily-for-profit group over something like this.
While domains have come and gone, sometimes multiple times, each of my users has had a working public_html all that time. Needing to register domains and actively maintain them is definitely a shortcoming of the Internet.
There are just too many examples of companies promising things, often enough fully meaning their promises, only to be bought by big, evil companies that quickly toss those promises. Unlimited becomes limited or more costly. 100 years, I can easily see, becomes ten years at a time unless you confirm and update your billing information periodically to pay for incidentals and overages.
Also, Wordpress is horribly bad at future compatibility, so if you're going to set up a site that can't have plugins because those plugins won't work in five years, why not just make a static site?
The 100 with the Earth in the middle is the cherry on the cake.
In a 100 years, the problems of Earth will be much bigger than accessing blog posts of this time. Besides, isn't archive.org taking care of this for free?
A better investment would be to plan 38K USD worth of planting trees and environmental ventures.
> Besides, isn't archive.org taking care of this for free?
They aren't an internet utility we can take for granted. A lot of things could happen in that time. They're under attack for various reasons even now, and we don't know that the tech and political landscape looks like in the future. Having the first party content host make plans for preservation doesn't hurt.
These comments are missing the point: At this rate, within a decade 100% of web content will be covered up by video ads, so there'll be nothing to see anyway. I think /. is down to about an inch of reading space at this point (on a desktop).
The marketing trick of playing on the concepts of birth, childhood, life, longevity, legacy etc. for a blog/website comes off as a bit pretentious and lacking in taste, as if the WordPress subscription were a family heirloom.
Now that you mention it, it seems quite clever. This seems to be targeted at people who run businesses, who already spend a lot of time & money thinking about their estate & leaving it in a good state for their children to inherit. I wonder if the price point was figured out based on that (like as long as it's ballpark similar to paying attorney or whatever to provide this service for your house & business, then it makes sense to pay something similar for your digital wordpress assets)
This post feels like an April fools joke. Like somehow 100 year mortgages and 100 year websites go hand in hand.
Very few blogs or posts feel relevant a year or two later, let alone a decade. The only people buying this are those with Balenciaga trainers who drink wine shilled by influencers
Hum are 380$ per year, which is a lot.
My blog based on Wordpress cost me less than 118$/year with backup and domain cost (VAT Included).
It seems more than a 3x cost per year, which seems a lot even considering the inflation in the next 100 years.
There's a perfect use case for this: if you think your company stands a chance of running out of money in the future, but you just got an infusion of VC funding now... $38K isn't a large amount.
$38K is an insurance policy that will keep the marketing front end of your company's site online "forever", long after you run out of VC money and shutter the company. Keeps your vanity up and running, your fond memories.
It turns your hosting costs from a monthly expense to a "permanent" capital expense that's already paid for.
So you believe that your website made today will still be a good marketing tool 100 years from now?
Look, how old is internet right now? How much did it change since the beginning? How often do you look at a product online on an early-90s website and think "oh, that's good marketing"?
I don't think any serious business should see this as a "perfect use case". Just a big waste of money, that is.
There’s the cost, but that’s minor (for the minor).
The biggest negative is your newborn might not care or want whatever domain you picked out.
So the only real option is to buy tens or hundreds of domains and keep it secret. Then reveal the domain that most closely matched them when they’re of age, whatever that may be.
Literally not, physical does not have the density of digital.
You can download all of Wikipedia (text) in 5gb. 5gb was a lot in 1980, nothing now. So we need revolutions in storage that would allow at least some backups of archive.org and such outside of the 1 Internet Archive charity.
I’ve got a lot of clients with WordPress sites and this hasn’t been the case for a very long time - the only exception being poorly written 3rd party plugins.
Current generation WordPress regularly updates automatically with no issues, and I’ve seen no incidents with security updates for PHP either.
Did you just create this new account because your previous accounts were banned for posting racist, transphobic, and sexist shit, lies, and conspiracy theories, yet you're continuing to post racist, transphobic, and sexist shit, lies, and conspiracy theories from this new account? Didn't you learn anything?
>you know it well that you can't upgrade from php 7 to 8 without the site crashing
This is not unique to WordPress, this is how most any software running on an interpreted language would behave if you updated the interpreter by a major version and did not update the software to a supported version.
Major version upgrades in PHP are the only time BC breaks are allowed, for example.
Wordpress does very well on motte and Bailey - the core is performant and secure, but if you try to do anything with just core, you’re told to install any number of (quite good mind you) plugins.
Most of the time you get a new client and they have a website with a theme and plugins that haven't seen updates in years because the authors abandoned them. You have to constantly fix them. Even if you create the website yourself you really have no way of knowing for how long it will be supported, and even then, you are not going to do a complete security audit of the codebase.
For example because of latest updates to PHP 8 they have deprecated the $var{key} syntax - who the fuck uses that?! I did not even know it existed until some of my clients' websites crashed after I updated PHP.
It's an absolute minefield since we moved on to the PHP 7 branch. I am glad for PHP because the language sucked before because of how lenient it was. But it creates a lot of work for me.
Wordpress is only 20 years old, and whilst it’s currently a viable company there’s no guarantee that they will be so in another 20 years.
As for 100 years? Sorry, not buying it (both figuratively and literally): we’ve already seen a huge change in technology that has already deprecated many a tech stack, and that change is only increasing in velocity.
$38K is a huge sum to put down when there’s zero actual proof they’ll even be able to sustain this for 25 years, let alone 100.