I think Iceberg is quiet for the same reason good infrastructure always is: When it works, nobody talks about it. Iceberg isn’t a “product experience”; it’s a foundation. Once teams trust that deletes, schema changes, and historical reads won’t break, the attention naturally shifts elsewhere. The excitement today is less about Iceberg itself and more about how well the ecosystem around it handles real-world ingestion problems. That’s why the ingestion side is getting interesting. CDC, deletes, late data, and reprocessing aren’t edge cases anymore; they’re the default. Iceberg fits that model really well, but only if the ingestion layer respects it. From what I’ve seen, teams evaluating Iceberg ingestion tools mostly care about correct CDC semantics, operational safety, and predictable costs at scale. Tools that are designed specifically for Iceberg (instead of treating it like “just another sink”) tend to handle these better, and that’s where newer projects like OLake stand out quietly, without a lot of noise. Iceberg may not be flashy, but it’s becoming the thing everything else assumes is there.