OpenTelemetry's secret weapon
As OpenTelemetry's adoption has surged, it's drawn increasing criticism: it's complex, isn't fully matured, and its user experience can feel... unpolished. While these are valid gripes, I think we've hit an inflection point where OTel's benefits outweigh its pain points, especially when compared to the alternative of proprietary telemetry pipelines and lock-in with the dominant (and outrageously expensive) vendors.
In the next year or so, I think its benefits are going to increase dramatically due to its secret weapon: semantic conventions. These conventions allow any observability vendor to create the same rich, powerful, out-of-the-box user experiences that the dominant players had locked-down via their ownership of the entire telemetry pipeline.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/558bc/558bc92b830f0f818a8770913295a4d189b98a40" alt="A superhero holding a secret weapon"
Now that OpenTelemetry has gained such significant traction, it's starting to attract a lot of attention beyond the hardcore observability community. While most of what I read about OTel is pretty positive, it also draws its fair share of shade.
Honestly, I get it. As a big user of OTel, I've spent plenty of hours rage debugging OTTL filters in OTel collectors, desperately searching for SDK examples that actually work, or pulling my hair out trying to figure out which version of a protobuf schema changed and broke telemetry from my Swift clients. And like a lot of the haters, I also get frustrated that the overall level of complexity in the specifications leaks into the implementation details of every part of the project.
All that said, I'm incredibly thankful that OTel exists. While it's still in its awkward teenage years, it's already changing the industry dramatically. Despite the challenges that currently exist, I think OpenTelemetry is the only reasonable path forward for observability.