Open source business model looks shakey
impossible
open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think this would be
good news for companies developing open-source wares. But wait....If a
simple and supported proprietary service can be built using open-source
tools, then what reason does anyone have to buy an "enterpise subscription"
from the developer of those tools?
"After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL) and
other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software world are
essentially meaningless in the networked world, where software is used to
create services, but isn't actually distributed. This is as true for Red Hat
as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine if
Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red Hat
Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It could happen.
Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a matter of
when.
"This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly monetize open
source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out a Plan
B before Plan A gets taken from them."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
Gordon
impossible
"Gordon" <gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:7ms8v9F...@mid.individual.net...
Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure out
some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service contracts,
then they will become extinct.
Allistar
So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a business
model.
--
A.
Allistar
> Agreed - it is a philosophy of software development. The fact that
> businesses can sell service contracts to support others who wish to use
> open source software is a marvelous thing.
Indeed. The way I see it, people (or companies) develop software for one of
two reasons: to make a profit by selling that software, or to save costs by
using that software. The former tend to be software development companies.
The latter tend to be in some other business that is heavily reliant on IT.
For the former, it makes little sense to open source what they develop. For
the latter, it makes a lot of sense to open source what they develop as it
allows them to reduce the cost of that development. One reason to not open
source what they develop is to retain any competitive edge that software
provides.
So, do you develop software to make a profit, or do you develop software to
save on costs? The answer to that question may determine whether open
source is right for you.
--
A.
victor
I think the OP means that Red Hat's business model is under threat.
According to this article there are five open source business models.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/the_five_open_s.html
1. Sell support services
2. Build (or run) hardware
3. Proprietary components
4. Dual licensing
5. Advertising
The linux kernel isn't a hobby or a community project, its a common
shared resource, open source companies aren't huge and don't need to be
huge to survive. Free software is free to evolve as Gordon said, and if
one participant drops out, others will fill the niche. There is no plan
A, plan B etc, there are just needs and solutions. For support for JBoss
the natural holders of the credentials are Redhat/JBoss
Cloud computing services are built with open source components, thats
how Google does it, quite pragmatically, and they start at the baseline
of free with advertising.
They use this income to provide the infrastructure for subscribed
services, so anyone else monetizing the same service competes in that
market, navigation or apps or communications. Now we are seeing them
putting in the entry points to suit themselves with android and chrome
and chromeOS. Just like Coca Cola's goal of just reach for a Coke,
Google aims to be there when you reach for your phone/netbook/pc etc to
be the universal home page, before you boot into Windows if possible.
And both Microsoft and Apple were founded by hobbyists for hobbyists.
impossible
"Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
news:LIydnV1Nn7m7G5TW...@giganews.com...
The question is, how do companies that develop open source software make
money? If RedHat's work is just going to be bundled into a bunch of
"community projects", then who will pay RedHat's expenses?
impossible
So you're saying there's no future in developing a for-profit business based
on open-source software development -- Right? But as a for-profit developer
yourself, you'd like to continue to be able to copy code from open-source
developers at will and make money off their labor without having to
compensate them -- Yes?
Allistar
That depends if they are a company that makes money selling software or
services for software. A lot of companies are in completely different
markets and they develop open source software to help them run those
businesses.
> If RedHat's work is just going to be bundled into a bunch of
> "community projects", then who will pay RedHat's expenses?
What expenses would they be? Redhat are a company that is based on the
distribution and support of open source software.
--
A.
Allistar
> So you're saying there's no future in developing a for-profit business
> based on open-source software development -- Right?
No, I'm not saying that at all.
> But as a for-profit
> developer yourself, you'd like to continue to be able to copy code from
> open-source
> developers at will and make money off their labor without having to
> compensate them -- Yes?
I don't copy any code from other open source developers in my commercial
developments.
--
A.
impossible
So when you say that "it makes little sense" for developers who want to make
a profit to to open source their work, what do you mean exactly?
>> But as a for-profit
>> developer yourself, you'd like to continue to be able to copy code from
>> open-source
>> developers at will and make money off their labor without having to
>> compensate them -- Yes?
>
> I don't copy any code from other open source developers in my commercial
> developments.
> --
Ok. But you do use open-source development tools, isn't that right? Do you
pay for those tools?
impossible
Read the OP and answer the bloody question, Allistar! You're starting to
sound like some Larry D'Loserite who always wants to change the subject.
>
>> If RedHat's work is just going to be bundled into a bunch of
>> "community projects", then who will pay RedHat's expenses?
>
> What expenses would they be? Redhat are a company that is based on the
> distribution and support of open source software.
> --
I guess you really are a Larry D'Loserite now. Bye-bye.
Allistar
I mean that if a company gets their primary revenue stream from selling
software, it makes little sense to give that software aware for nothing.
>>> But as a for-profit
>>> developer yourself, you'd like to continue to be able to copy code from
>>> open-source
>>> developers at will and make money off their labor without having to
>>> compensate them -- Yes?
>>
>> I don't copy any code from other open source developers in my commercial
>> developments.
>
> Ok. But you do use open-source development tools, isn't that right? Do you
> pay for those tools?
I primarily use proprietary development tools, but I do use an open source
operating system. (And be aware that you have accused me of claiming to use
only open source development tools before, but you couldn't prove me ever
saying that. As I said, the development tools I use most of the time are
proprietary).
--
A.
Allistar
There are many sorts of companies that develop open source software. For
example: postal centres. They make money by charging for mail delivery.
Dairy companies may contribute to open source projects, and their primary
income is from selling milk based products.
If you want me to comment on a particular company, then name them, otherwise
there is no generic answer to your questions because companies develop open
source software for a huge variety of reasons.
--
A.
impossible
I'm aware that you claim to use open source tools when its suits your
purposes. Be aware that I'm beginning to distrrust anything you say.
impossible
Read the OP, which hasnothing to do with any "generic" company. RedHat comes
instantly to mind. Among the newcomers --- try OpenBravo. What''s their
Plan A? And , given competive pressures, what do you think their Plan B
ought to be? If you have nothing to say, then please leave it at that.
Allistar
> I'm aware that you claim to use open source tools when its suits your
> purposes. Be aware that I'm beginning to distrrust anything you say.
I do use open source tools, but primarily for software development I use
proprietary tools. When doing web based development I use primarily Quanta
and Gimp, both open source. When doing C++ and other development I use
proprietary tools. I have always been upfront about that, for some reason
people have made assumptions about what kind of software I use.
You when you say "But as a for-profit developer yourself, you'd like to
continue to be able to copy code from open-source developers at will and
make money off their labor without having to compensate them -- Yes?"
The answer is: I don't copy code from open source developers.
--
A.
impossible
Maybe because you've so frequently portaryed yourself as a champion of
open-source development. Seems that was all just a pretense on your part.
> You when you say "But as a for-profit developer yourself, you'd like to
> continue to be able to copy code from open-source developers at will and
> make money off their labor without having to compensate them -- Yes?"
>
> The answer is: I don't copy code from open source developers.
> --
You seem to be choosing your words very carefully. I smell a rat.
Are you claiming now that you've never found any open-source code useful
enough to build into your commercial applications? That would be quite a
condemnation of the "open source community" you claim to support. Are you
sure you don't want to reconsider?
Allistar
I use the best tools for the job. In some cases that's open source tools, in
some case proprietary. I see no conflict. Yes, I do support the open source
development model, as I support the proprietary development model.
>> You when you say "But as a for-profit developer yourself, you'd like to
>> continue to be able to copy code from open-source developers at will and
>> make money off their labor without having to compensate them -- Yes?"
>>
>> The answer is: I don't copy code from open source developers.
>
> You seem to be choosing your words very carefully. I smell a rat.
??
> Are you claiming now that you've never found any open-source code useful
> enough to build into your commercial applications?
Yes.
> That would be quite a
> condemnation of the "open source community" you claim to support.
How so? I don't spend my days trawling through open source code. In fact, I
have viewed very little of it.
> Are you
> sure you don't want to reconsider?
No, not at all. I use open source software as well as proprietary software.
I use the best tools for the job. I'm not an opponent of either development
methodologies.
--
A.