Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Is open source dead as a business model?

Advocates like to believe that the open source business model will change the world. But there's plenty of evidence that it will remain what it is now: A very useful niche that provides a valuable service for many, but that will never become an economic force, or challenge Microsoft or other large commercial software companies.

The New York Times today published an article examining this in detail. It looked at several pieces of well-known open source software, and open source software companies, and found that, for the most part, there's not much of a business model for open source firms to thrive.

It starts off looking at MySQL. The founders of the open source database and company certainly did well by themselves, selling out to Sun Microsystems for $1 billion in 2008. But the newspaper notes:

like most open-source companies, MySQL’s sales, tied to support deals, never matched the astronomical number of downloads for its product, about 60,000 a day.

Sun is likely ruing the day it bought MySQL, because European regulators are holding up company's acquisition by Oracle because of the fear Oracle would shut down or starve MySQL for potentially competing with Oracle's own software.

Red Hat, of course, is a clear success. According to the Times, though:

But Red Hat is a rare case. "There's only one company making real money out of open source, and that’s Red Hat," said Simon Crosby, the chief technology officer at Citrix Systems, which acquired the open-source software maker XenSource for $500 million in 2007. "Everyone else is in trouble."

The Times noted that as a general rule, open source companies have been purchased by big commercial software makers less for their revenue than as strategic assets. Most of the purchases were for specific, niche products. It says:

The larger technology companies have tended to buy these one-trick ponies for strategic purposes. With its core server business declining, Sun hoped it could piggy-back on MySQL's momentum with Internet companies. In SpringSource, VMware acquired a company that had cultivated deep interest with software developers and helped VMware diversify beyond its virtualization roots.

A bigger question, though, is whether it really matters whether open source succeeds as a business model. As the Times points out:

The grass-roots nature of open source has led advocates to view the projects as a populist foil to proprietary software, where a company keeps the inner workings of its applications secret.

But in the last decade, open-source software has become more of a corporate affair than a people's revolution.

It may well be that there really is no long-term corporate model for open source, and that measuring the success of open source by the revenue it generates is simply wrong. Open source's influence matters more than the bottom line. In that case, open source continues to succeed -- just one look at a runaway hit like Firefox is more than enough evidence.

What People Are Saying

Asking the wrong question

Open source software is permanent. With or without the business model, the software remains, and will grow forever.

What can and must frighten companies like Microsoft is the knowledge that their own slice of the software business has no such inherent permanence. New companies may be formed, and companies that fail will perish.

The world watches on as Microsoft's top management proves time and again that they don't get it. They're surely in a good position relative to many software companies, but they keep offending the public and are unlikely to retain their present level of prominence unless that is corrected.

So, there are pitfalls for the businesses -- both the open source business model and the proprietary software model, but if an open source business fails the code remains, whereas if a proprietary software company fails the sofware will either die, or be swallowed up by another company, or be swallowed up by open source.

So why focus on business models? Keep your eye on the future, it's throwing fastballs.

Any day now the year of the

Any day now the year of the Linux desktop will be upon us!! Get real. Of course MS is scared of competitors making a better product and taking over their customer base. Every single company in the world is afraid of that. That doesn't mean they're afraid of FOSS software, because its amateur crap that nobody wants or uses. I certainly don't, and I've been using *ix in some fashion since '99. I'm an IT administrator with a CS degree, THE target market for Linux, and I don't use anything but a FreeBSD server for privately hosted webapps and a pfsense router. I know how to fix pretty much any stupid foible I encounter in linux, but I spend all day fixing computers and I don't want to have to fix my own when I get home. I want to record music with Protools and Reaper, play games and mess with making flash animations.

You say microsoft offends the public. I would say that microsoft offends YOU and other fr33tards, because its impossible for MS to do anything that pleases you. You delivered a verdict long before hearing the evidence and your mind is closed to the possibility that hey, maybe MS does make a quality product. Windows Vista: Zero crashes. Windows 7: Zero crashes (since week 1 of RC). It runs all my apps, and works with all my hardware. It even looks nicer than Linux these days. Doesn't matter to you, because like I said your mind was already made up.

But bear in mind, the rest of the world does not neccessarily care about the same arbitrary "software freedoms" you care about (which are all a load of crap anyway). They just want it to work, and they want to be able to use their software to produce meaningful results. MS software delivers on that in spades, without obscure workarounds and CLI magic.

Are you trying to say

that the following freedoms :
- no WGA
- no DRM
- no compulsory registration and re-registration
- no back-doors
- no tilt-bits
- no phone-home
- no spying on your personal info

are arbitrary and a load of crap anyway ?

In this case it says a lot about you as an honest person.

Are you trying to say that

Are you trying to say that there are backdoors and personal info spying in windows? Citation please. You Fr33tards are the masters of dishonesty and FUD. Who cares about honesty as long as it makes "the enemy" look bad? You guys are worse than politicians. Are you really so worried about how Linux stands up to its competition that you resort to paranoid and unfounded allegations? Typical.

WGA who cares, MS deserves to be paid for their software. Do you think windows was free to produce? Windows is the result of billions of dollars and many years worth of R&D and testing. WGA is not intrusive at all unless you're pirating windows, and I deal with installing/activating windows every day as a technician. I've had to call their registration hotline a few times and there's never been any problems. It doesn't take nearly as long or as much reading as configuring PRINTING OR FILE SHARING on a freaking linux machine- two of the most basic tasks.

And yeah, I'd like to have the FREEDOM to play DRM encumbered media if I so choose. I'm glad you Linux morons don't even give me the option. I'm happy all these music files I bought are now worthless because there's no iTunes.

The hard and simple truth that you do not (and may not ever) realize- good software takes money to produce. If companies don't charge for their software they won't be able to stay in the business of creating and selling software for long. It is FAIR that they are compensated for their effort, and if entering a few CD keys whenever I install something is the price to pay for that, it's a more than amicable tradeoff.

If you say that proprietary and software, given an abject comparison, are equal in features stability and support- you are the one being dishonest. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself rather than swallowing the FOSS groupthink.

Are you trying to say that

Are you trying to say that there are backdoors and personal info spying in windows? Citation please. You Fr33tards are the masters of dishonesty and FUD. Who cares about honesty as long as it makes "the enemy" look bad? You guys are worse than politicians. Are you really so worried about how Linux stands up to its competition that you resort to paranoid and unfounded allegations? Typical.

WGA who cares, MS deserves to be paid for their software. Do you think windows was free to produce? Windows is the result of billions of dollars and many years worth of R&D. It's really not intrusive at all unless you're pirating windows, and I deal with installing/activating windows every day as a technician. I've had to call their registration hotline a few times and there's never been any problems. It doesn't take nearly as long or as much reading as configuring PRINTING OR FILE SHARING on a freaking linux machine- two of the most basic tasks.

And yeah, I'd like to have the FREEDOM to play DRM encumbered media if I so choose. I'm glad you Linux tards don't even give me the option. I'm happy all these music files I bought are now worthless because there's no iTunes.

The hard and simple truth that you do not (and may not ever) realize- good software takes money to produce. If companies don't charge for their software they won't be able to stay in the business of creating and selling software for long. It is FAIR that they are compensated for their effort, and if entering a few CD keys whenever I install something is the price to pay for that, it's a more than amicable tradeoff.

yeah!

As luck would have it, I just demonstrated the Linux desktop to a couple people today! They were quite impressed. Most people are. They keep saying "Are you telling me this is all running off that little jumpdrive AND blowing my Windows doors off?"

I have to keep saying "Yes, it really is."

If they like it now, imagine

If they like it now, imagine how much they'll love it 2 months from now when they can't run any of their software and they spend every weekend googling to fix software flaws. Or you can save them the trouble and just tell them it wont run iTunes. Be sure to keep telling them how EEEEVIL itunes is because of drm and blahblah freedom blahblah closed source and they need to convert all their mp3s into ogg so their ipod is a fancy white paperweight. Be sure to mention how flash crashing firefox is a good thing because the memory leaks in firefox make it run sluggish after using it for a while anyway. Ah linux, it just works.

open your eyes

Are you for real?

I'm a MCSE. In 2003 I switched to using OS X. In 2008 I wanted a netbook, and went for the smallest, cheapest option available. It ran Linux and when I installed WINE it ran Lotus Notes faster than on my Vista laptop.

When my powerbook started to fail, I bought the first cheapo (Advent) laptop I found. It came with Vista, but I installed Mandriva on it. It even connects to my Windows Mobile HTC smartphone, and uses the phone as my internet connection.

Once again, Notes runs like a champ (under WINE - I'm not interested in running it as a Java app). Openoffice came with Mandriva and is more capable than I'll ever need. The whole thing works brilliantly. In fact, my business now runs entirely off Linux.

I leave the Mandriva dvd in the drive and whenever I need a particular piece of software functionality, a few clicks and its installed and free. Having to worry about a fraction of the security problems that plague Windows is just a bonus.

Every MS machine starts to gather cruft and start malfunctioning after a few months. My Vista laptop just stops seeing my wireless network, whilst my linux laptops and even my powerbook can consistently find the network. My Vista laptop can't even connect to my Windows smartphone.

Open source is not a business model

Open Source is very alive and will probably remain such, regardless of whether some corporations will succeed profiting by selling it. It's primarily a behavior of top-notch engineers who have pride in ownership, confidence to show others the inner workings of their intellectual product, and a willingness to take feedback in public and improve.

Agreed, Open Source is not a business model

It is a development model. The business models that use Open Source are typically service oriented business models. The reporters got the whole thing wrong.

Red Hat is not an Open Source company as such. They have Open Source products, but the business Model is a service model.

SUN died because they lost focus on their business model. Sun made operating systems for high end hardware. They got distracted with many other things, including, but not limited to Open Source products. SUN was based on selling software licenses, so is somewhat incompatible with the Service Model that typically acompanies Open Source products.

Open Source will remain so long as people are willing to donate time to projects, and that could be a long time.

Businesses based on Open Source products must understand their model extremely well as they cannot fall back on the traditional license model.

It's a cruel world out there. Businesses come and go. Open Source has limited appeal as the basis of a service business model, but it can, in limited circumstances, work.