O'Reilly on the Commoditization of Software

O'Reilly is right about the license thing. by saitoh · 2003-07-04 15:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The best/greatest standing part about open source isnt GNOME or KDE, or that we all have free speach software, its what we are DOING with that software. Amazon is built on perl, and look what it has accomplished.

Later in the artical he comments on Debian, and how the creator and his company Progeny dont view linux as a product, but "a set of commodity software components he can put together for different purposes."

What he's getting at is that if the OSS community wanted to push forward, you need an idea and then use linux as the tools for that idea, suhc as automated backup, or something snazy like amazon (where it is a tool, and not the product). Trying to market it as a free desktop platform (in which case linux is the product) just wont cut it. I've done projects for my university, and its worked before, and it will work again.

Disclaimer: Do I beleive that linux cant be a product? No, I'm just saying that *ONE OF* (and not limited to) the best ways is to use it as a tool, not a product.

--
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."

Re:O'Reilly is right about the license thing. by Delphix · 2003-07-04 17:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think a good example of this is Mac OS X.

Apple used FreeBSD as the platform on which to build the Mac OS X. However O'Reilly is right on in this case. Besides the modifications to the core kernal / toolset the Open Source community doesn't get much back.

It's not so much a case of them not distributing, but they don't distribute anything that was originally open source other than the core OS. Aqua, Quartz, Carbon, the Classic Environment and all the great apps (iTunes, Safari, iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, etc, etc) are all proprietary.

So Apple gets the core of their OS devleoped for them by Open Source community. I'm not saying they don't give back, but they do get quite a bit out of the deal. And get to sell their software (&hardware) to boot.

In the end I guess Open Source is just a two edge sword.
Re:O'Reilly is right about the license thing. by Arandir · 2003-07-04 18:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

First, Apple has given back to every Open Source project it's borrowed from. The two main examples are FreeBSD and KDE. Why aren't they giving back Aqua? Because they didn't borrow Aqua from the community!

Second, according to the Tim philosophy of Open Source, Apple is the equivalent of Compaq. It's taking commodity software and "improving" it with proprietary additions. This works great (it worked great for Compaq), but eventually the paradigm shift will occur, and people are going to say "why am I paying proprietary prices for what should be commodity goods?"

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:O'Reilly is right about the license thing. by slux · 2003-07-04 21:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes, but given back very little in comparison to what they've got. The projects Apple has "borrowed" from would exist without apple, OS X most likely would not without them. But then again, they've chosen their licenses so that they allow this, and it's entirely okay if Apple takes everything and never gives anything back.

The impression I get from Slashdot is that many GNU/Linux /BSD users are these day jumping to Apple because the only motivation they ever had for using it was the utility value (which the OSI advocates) and they see more of that value in OS X with all it's non-free programs. Fine if you'd like that to be the future of operating systems but I sure as hell wouldn't. Go ask someone who was around about the old UNIXes.

What we have with GNU (/Linux/*BSD/Hurd) is a free OS which can change the way people think about software completely and bring the copyright law (at least for software) eventually back to reality. Even if you can't do everything you can with Apple's proprietary stuff right now, if it feels like the right thing you should refuse to sponsor the software companies that choose to license their software non-free.

I for one think that a future where all software was free would be better for the society. Not necessarily for the same reasons Stallman has, I'm not sure I see how non-free software is "morally wrong" but you can accept that idea even on lighter grounds, just like the current copyright law has accepted that we should not have these freedoms by default.

There's another great example of commoditization: by Exitthree · 2003-07-04 15:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

...Apple. Look at what Apple did with OS X. Apple took an Open Source OS and pinned it up with a proprietary front-end. The system benefits from all of the Open Source advancements in hardware control, while at the same time, the user has all the benefits of a modern, easy-to-use interface.

Perhaps the article should have pointed out that the commoditization of Open Source largely involves the things the user never sees. What hasn't evolved yet is a fundamentally easy-to-use Open Source GUI for the whole slew of commodity parts in the back-end.

Other companies have taken a similar path with commodity software, Red Hat for instance. However, their business plan involves capitalization on commodity products, not in the interface department, but rather in the support department. In theory, these two branches aren't that far separated. Interface and support both help the user accomplish the same thing, that is, getting work done on the computer.

I think we're nearing the turning point where we decide there aren't that many tasks we haven't managed to code on the computer. In comparison, we have a much larger area to cross in making things easier for the user. It would make perfect sense, business-wise, to assume that the area that is most open for development is the area that is most profitable. Therefore, I imagine this is the next area that software, internet, and computer manufacturers will flourish.

Open Source and Government Research by dreadlord76 · 2003-07-04 15:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I just finished attending a Molecular Biology Training class, and I couldn't help drawing parallels between Open Source and the public Research that is on-going, such as the Human Genome Project.

Like open source software, public research labs publish the data they found, such as mouse or yeast genome, into the public domain (Humor me, I know that Open Source is not public domain, but it's darn close in terms of availability and cost). In addition, when a lab creates a new genomic library, they are supposed to make it available to anyone who asks. Sounds a lot like Open Source.

However, privately funded research usually do not have such policy, and use patents, trade secrets, and Copyrights to protect the IP. This has some effect in slowly down advancement in science in many ways. Such research also lead to imporant, and profitable advances for the companies involved.

But, due to limited public funding, not all worthwhile projects are funded in a timely fashion. A grant request to the NIH may take years before approved. A private company, seizing an oppertunity, may choose to invest and jump start a new field of research.

It seems that both models can co exist, and maybe it's time to have a publicly funded, or even an industry funded, organization, the supports Open Source development. The group should focus on open standards, common tools and platforms, and anything else someone can make a good case for. Something that will advance our knowledge, and make life easier. Something that we all cooperate on, rather than having blackmails or mighty pissing contests.

Maybe we should begin to treat Computer Science like Science, and really advance it methodically, rather than "My code is faster than your code..."

Re:eBay's purchase of Oracle??? by g_arumilli · 2003-07-04 16:00 · Score: 5, Informative

According to Yahoo! Finance, EBay has a market capitalization of $34.9 billion, while Oracle has one of $63.6 billion. So unless Larry Ellison has "pocket change" on the order of tens of billions of dollars, he doesn't have a shot in hell of purchasing EBay. While it may be a stretch to assume that EBay will some day grow large enough to purchase Oracle, it is kind of suprising how large EBay has grown.

APSL covers deployment too by sbwoodside · 2003-07-04 16:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

What's wrong with this picture? Well, one thing is that one of the fundamental premises of open source is that the licenses are all conditioned on the act of software distribution, and once you're no longer distributing an application, none of the licenses mean squat.

One of the things that was criticized about the APSL was that it covers deployment as well. And they define deployment as anything other than R&D and personal use. Check it out in Section 1.4.

simon

--
home page

to a hammer, everything is a nail by astrashe · 2003-07-04 16:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think that a lot of the dyanamics he's talking about hold true -- obviously, O'Reilley is a very smart guy.

But it seems to me that he's looking at service industries, and calling them software companies. In order to do that, he has to change the definition of a software company, and as a result he's able to announce this as a shift in the software industry.

My problem with what he says is mostly aesthetic. It's that same old silicon valley rich guy entrepeneur guru bs.

He's making a lot of points that most people know -- web applications are more exciting, in many respects, than desktop applications now. Web applications are being built out of commodity pieces. The data in eBay and the customer good will is worth more than the code. All of those are good points, if not exactly earth shaking.

But the way he's stiched them together is mostly a semantic trick, and he's out there like he's been given stone tablets on some moutaintop.

It's not evil or anything, just a little icky.

Re:to a hammer, everything is a nail by Ogerman · 2003-07-04 19:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

My problem with what he says is mostly aesthetic. It's that same old silicon valley rich guy entrepeneur guru bs. He's making a lot of points that most people know -- web applications are more exciting, in many respects, than desktop applications now. Web applications are being built out of commodity pieces. The data in eBay and the customer good will is worth more than the code. All of those are good points, if not exactly earth shaking.

I think you're right on. In the buzz that Mr. O'Reilly is caught up in, it's easy to forget that that vast majority of computer users spend their days in MS Office, MS Outlook/Exchange, and XYZ customized core business application used by their workplace -- NOT Amazon and Ebay. Ordinary boring business applications are where the Open Source movement has enormous room to grow and conquer. While the core software 'stack' (OS,GUI,etc.) may be commoditized by this point, the rest isn't.

It is not uncommon for a medium sized business to spend literally millions USD on software licenses. Part of that is the M$ tax (OS, Servers, Office) and the other part is custom software that only runs on M$ platforms (accounting, ERP/CRM, etc.) Then, tack on all the support / training services needed to keep said software working. If anyone thinks there's no room for Open Source on the business desktop, they're pretty blind to reality. The issue is more how to coordinate developer-consultants such that they can collectively meet needs of their clients. (ie. free software / non-free services & customization)

But is there a market for an alternative? I challenge anyone who doesn't believe so to investigate what ordinary businesses are currently paying out for their IT needs -- both software licenses and services related.

Bad economy or not, there is always a market for better product at a better price. We don't need more eBay's and Amazon's; we need more Open Source entrepreneurs.

Tim O is right by RevMike · 2003-07-04 16:10 · Score: 4, Informative

I have a cousin working for a company that sells, among other things, a mainframe based spreadsheet app. He claims that the market for applications is drying up, and I have to agree.

The fact of the matter is that the various open source or free products are good enough. As the software consumers become better educated, the market for traditional applications shrinks. OpenOffice.org is good enough that anyone who knows better won't buy MS Office. Opera is as good as any browser out there and can be run free of charge - with only a minor banner ad. One by one any major "shrink wrap" product will feel the pinch.

The future is in two places - integration and data critical mass.

Integration is really going to be two businesses - creating then supporting custom collections of free software and writing code to integrate free applications into custom solutions. The first business is already developing - with companies such as RedHat leading the way. The second business is in its infancy - but much of our future lay with workflow scripting.

Data Critical Mass is the business of becoming the big boy in a market with no natural barriers and doing it well enough that there is no reason for customers to look elsewhere. Very honestly, how long would it take a small group of decent programers to replicate "eBay"? I think about a week. But at the end of the week could we provide better value? Hell, no! Why would anyone list with us, and our "dozens of potential buyers" on day one when they can list with eBay and be seen by "millions"?

In the future, all general purpose applications will be written by bearded socialist hippies while smoking pot in their basements as the professional (in the sense of getting paid - not work quality) programmers write workflow scripts in the office. Meanwhile the eBays and Amazons are smart enough to keep the "goose laying the golden eggs" alive, content to dominate their marketplace and earn a decent margin rather than try to get a fat margin and instead create an opeing for a competitor.

Re:There's another great example of commoditizatio by fiftyvolts · 2003-07-04 16:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Bingo.

Don't think that O'Reilly doesn't know this either. Check out how many books, articles, and so forth they have published since OS X came out. I had the privilege a few months ago to have a sit down with the current editor of the Apple books, and from the way he talked it seems that O'Reilly is nothing short of ecstatic about the OS.

O'Reilly, IMHO, publishes by far the best books on the market. This is because they have excellent editors and scouts (for lack of a better word) to find very intelligent, very insightful people to write their books. I suggest people check out there dev sites more often; they are treasure troves of info

--
100% Crunchier

Bucky Fuller predicted this in a way. by mikeophile · 2003-07-04 16:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

That a certain percentage of the population be given machine lathes with the condition that they have to produce at least one additional lathe to give with the same condition to someone who didn't have one yet.

Very soon, everyone would have lathes. The market for lathes would be nil. The new market would be for what you could produce with your lathe. Even that market would wane, since anything that was produced for market could be quickly copied by others.

I think eventually, the market would shift again. Now, the lathe owners would create new proprietary tools that would be used to produce goods and services.

It seems the IT industry is going through those evolutions now.

The PC is our lathe, and the software is the first tier of production from these lathes.

When a new application comes out, such as the browser, it's just a question of time before the concept is copied to the point of market saturation.

Open Source is the recognition of this inevitability, and is providing the templates for this first tier.

Now, the challenge is to take these tools and make our own, custom applications and profit from them.

Amazon and Ebay have done this for themselves, but are wisely cooperating with individuals who are making new tools to profit with them.

If Bucky was right, the wealth that can be created by such cooperation has no limits.

Microsoft understood this long ago. by LibertineR · 2003-07-04 16:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

For at least the last 5 years, Microsoft has understood that nobody buys 'Windows or Office or Exchange'. Corporation buy Networking, Information Management and Messaging instead, and the winners are those who provide the TOOLS for these business missions better than the next guy.

Linux vs Windows was never the proper battle, it was always a battle over what you DO with these things, and how you do them more effieciently than the other guy. Lots of companies NEED something like Exchange, so they by an Active Directory and Windows by default, and so on and so on.

O'Reilly is dead on right. All this shit is just commodity for the applications built upon it that actually generate income. Superiority of one platform over another is a moot point. No one decides to buy a book at Amazon because of Linux, instead of Barnes and Noble because they run on IIS, so get over it.

Windows against Linux is now like Goodyear versus Michelin. Who gives a shit? Only tire makers, not CAR makers. So, it is time to focus on building shit that rides on these things, instead of so much focus on the things themselves. No side has an advantage right now, but that could change overnight. Suppose Microsoft buys Amazon, or EBay buys Oracle? Same players, whole new battle, and all this crap over which OS is better doesnt mean a thing.

What if Microsoft buys Macromedia; takes Flash and does interesting remoting stuff with Web Services tied only to .NET? What is the competing solution from IBM going to look like?

I've got no answers, but I agree with O'Reilly that things are going to get very interesting over the next few years, and things are never going to be the same.

Disturbing trend... by diabolus_in_america · 2003-07-04 16:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think O'Reilly is right, but it points to a very disturbing trend, especially if you are someone who makes a living writing code.

What he is saying is that business solutions in the immediate future are no longer going to be development and integrated applications (basically, code), but ideas. Why is this disturbing? Because it removes the an entire industry from the equation, or at least, it shifts the software industry down in terms of relevance and importance.

He is saying that innovation will no longer come from companies like IBM or Oracle, but from the development of new business processes.

In fact, if you replace the word commodity with the word marginalization in his interview, you'll better see my point. And as software becomes more and more marginalized, the value of the software as well as those of us who write the software drops.

Frankly, it scares me to think that the skills I've worked so hard and spend so much to develop (and continue to develop) have nothing but marginal value.

Hmmm.... by Delphix · 2003-07-04 16:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Having read the article twice I'm not qutie sure I get O'Reilly's point.

What he's saying is correct, but it's not exactly earthshattering in anyway. Amazon puts together some services that rock. They patent them. And then they sell the service to others. That just seems logical.

How that ties into driving Open Source I'm not sure. If they're only devleoping proprietary things (services) on top of an open source backbone, they're not really driving Open Source devlopment. Just because I compile my program with gcc or use a perl script doesn't mean I'm driving open source development in anyway. They're just using it as the foundation to build on.

Open Source is by definition controlled by anyone who wants it to be. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like he's just stating the obvious and it has little to do with Open Source.

Economic drivers by Pettifogger · 2003-07-04 16:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

What O'Reilly has to say is pretty much on target, but I'm not sure if open source will be entirely subsumed by corporations looking to profit. Perhaps for industrial applications, but not on the home level.

What's going to happen on the home level is what's already happened to the hardware market. Everyone is looking for the lowest price. When the PC first came out, a lot of people were concerned about the brand/reputation, et al., and were willing to pay a premium for an AT&T, IBM, or other high-line product. That's where the software market is right now. The high-end hardware makers got slaughtered by price. And now the high-end software market is about to get slaughtered. Microsoft (and lots of others) are going to have to compete against the software equivalent of incredibly cheap clone hardware... and they are going to lose.

--

IAAL

Yes, But... by LibertineR · 2003-07-04 16:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

True that the market for Developers(the new mechanics) will shrink. But other markets for those skills will open up, as long as developers keep a business focus to what they do. There is nothing left to innovate in software itself, but much to innovate in the use and application of same to solve or streamline a business process or customer's service.

I'm happy for the change, so we can get over these stupid platform wars, and focus on things that actually do something besides send bits back and forth. Now we get to focus more on the value of those bits, and I think that is a good thing.

Re:Yes, But... by GrayArea · 2003-07-04 19:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is nothing left to innovate in software itself...

Nothing left to innovate in software? We've been at this for, let me see, about thirty years now, and you think we've done all that can be done? That sounds like saying we've seen the end of history. I'd say we'll be seeing a whole lot of different ways to build software, and fifty years from now, people won't even notice that's what they are doing. Just look at them using spreadsheets today.

--
"The deluded are always filled with absolutes. The rest of us have to live with ambiguity." - Aristoi, Walter Jon Willia

Hm, socialist potsmoking hippy or corporate drone? by mikeophile · 2003-07-04 17:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, but making a living in my basement home office coding applications while high sounds a lot better than writing TPS workflow scripts for a faceless corporation in a partitioned rat maze.

to expand on one point you made by mindstrm · 2003-07-04 18:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

regarding an open source gui...

(agree with everything you said, btw)

As a long time hardcore technical guy, and let me back that up by saying I'm a unix nut, I've been using linux heavily for 10 years now, solaris before that, and I get right into the guts.. I like assembly, circuit boards, and whatnot. I like a command prompt and I don't like microsoft.... anyway....
as a hardcore technical guy, open source liker, and a recent convert to OS-X... the comment about a gui got me thinking.

I like open source. I like open everything. I don't like being told what to do with my computer. Yet, I LOVE OSX, and I recognize that the one strength MacOS really has is that apple controls the desktop. It's not that you can't skin it, ,or change it's behavior.. but, in general, it's built to behave a certain way, and you can go around to macs everywhere, and the machine behave the way you expect them to. The developer knows what the user expects, and doesn't have to account for a dozen different ways to interface with things. More importantly, he has somewhre to start.. look how many windows applications have varied interfaces. To really understand this, in case anyone is doubting it, just sit down with a fresh mac and mac user for a few hours and learn how to install software, work with files, etc... you'll get it.

So.. we want an open source gui. Here's the thing... the only reason the mac has the "world class gui" feel to it is BECAUSE of a certain lack of openness.. we're talking about a benevolent dictator here. Apple developers know what to expect on the desktop, know how the mac user expects it to behave... and that's the main attraction. If you don't want that, you might as well go use linux.

Yes, we can do stuff in linux that OSX can't do. Yes, open is good, no argument here...I'm just tossing out the thought that, when it comes to providing a rock solid user experience, for a general purpose computer... a lack of choice is sometimes what's needed.. to get people thinking and doing the same thing.
You can sit someone down and show them windows -vs- mac.. and invariably, the mac people get more done, and are more comfortable with their gui.. and it's not because one is more customizable, or more flexible.. in fact it's the opposite.

Re:eBay's purchase of Oracle??? by great+throwdini · 2003-07-04 18:10 · Score: 4, Funny

What would eBay do with Oracle? That's like AOL buying Netscape.

If they ever grew tired with it, they would simply let the market decide. I can almost see it now:

"ORACLE CORP. MIB - FREE SHIP W/ BIN - LQQK!!!"

(For the eBay fanatics, that is a full 45-character auction listing.)

Re:There's another great example of commoditizatio by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-07-04 18:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

...Apple. Look at what Apple did with OS X. Apple took an Open Source OS and pinned it up with a proprietary front-end. The system benefits from all of the Open Source advancements in hardware control, while at the same time, the user has all the benefits of a modern, easy-to-use interface.

The FreeBSD folks get some benefit as well. Besides having another big company using their code, testing it (and supplying patches) they kind of avoid the tug of war that part of Linux is going through - the whole "is it for geeks or the masses?" The coders who are good at one tend not to be as good in the other. So the FreeBSD coders can concentrate on the lower level bits, and have the Apple folks worry about getting the real fancy GUI on top of it.

Re:Let's not kid ourselves by edhall · 2003-07-04 18:40 · Score: 4, Informative

You mean VA Software Corporation, of which OSDN is a wholly-owned subsidiary. I'd say that things are looking better than they were even a couple months ago. Of course, if the naysayers had been right, they'd have gone "poof" in 2000 or 2001, like about 80% of companies formed during the internet bubble.

-Ed

IBM sells Linux? by solprovider · 2003-07-04 19:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yes, IBM claims to be selling Linux solutions, and I am certain they are responsible for many installations of Linux. Also see their PDF of software available for Linux.

But IBM has not ported a critical piece of their own software to Linux clients.

GOOD
Clients for DB2 seem to have been ported to Linux.

Tivoli clients have been ported to RedHat and SuSE.

Rational seems to have been ported only for RedHat. It also works for SuSE if you are running IBM hardware. (Is this a marketing ploy or because of technical difficulties?)

WebSphere has a developer client for Linux. I first thought it was not available, then I found this mention of it. But I could not find it in the Buy Now area.

BAD
Lotus does not have Linux clients. IBM recommends running the client under WINE, but this is not acceptable for Fortune 500 companies with tens of thousands of desktops.

This is the killer. DB2, Rational, and WebSphere are used by developers. Tivoli is used by administrators. Every employee needs to use the mail client and information resources and collaboration abilities of the Lotus Notes client. Without a Linux version of the Lotus Notes client, many companies cannot migrate to Linux desktops. Also, Lotus Notes is the only commercial software with significant marketshare to compete with MsOutlook .

So, yes, IBM is pushing Linux for servers. But they control one of the major blocks for the Linux desktop in the corporate world, and they are letting us down.

--
I spend my life entertaining my brain.

No, he is wrong about the license thing by musicmaster · 2003-07-04 23:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Linux is just Linux and Perl is just Perl. They are just two nice little pieces of software that Amazon is using. Sure, they are making a lot from what they have built on top of that. But that is their right. Wasn't opensource about freedom? I think we should be glad if Amazon reports a Linux bug if they find one.

O'Reilly is right that data collections like Yahoo maps, E-bay and Amazon are the future. However, he is wrong about the answer. We will have to collect our own data. And just as with the software it may take some legal experimenting before we find the right formula.

There will be some setbacks like CDDB, but we can overcome that.

Also I am not very worried about the fact that the first implementations of such collections are commercial. The power of the opensource/opencontent is not in being first. It is in being with many and in being volunteers who provide things for free. We are a herd: slow to react, but impossible to resist.

Let me just do some guesswork how the answers might look like:
- Amazon: for the book evaluations we might have some open alternative that gets supported by a lot of smaller vendors. Just as with Netscape one vendor (maybe Borders) might pay the bills and let the others have a free ride just to get access to a wider public.
- Yahoo maps: at some point all software about maps will be standardized. At that point it might very well happen that the real providers of the data in the maps - mainly government agencies - take over.
- E-bay. E-bay doesn't have a real data collection. It is just the place where everyone goes, just as Slashdot is the place where everyone goes when they want a certain type of discussion. But this is a rather delicate position. It is just as with pubs or search websites: for years one is the most popular and then at once there is a shift.

Slashdot Mirror

O'Reilly on the Commoditization of Software

26 of 285 comments (clear)