Slashdot Mirror
Users as Innovators - Why Open Source Works
eaglemoon writes "Many people still have difficulty understanding why open source software projects are successfull. The Boston Globe has an interview with Eric von Hippel, a Professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, on users as innovators. In his new book, von Hippel, discusses how open source projects draw on the creativity of ''lead users," who are often ahead of the curve on technology and marketplace trends. Von Hippel shows the trend already is more advanced than is generally known, and users often freely reveal their innovations for the common good. The social efficiency of a system in which individual innovations are developed by individual users is increased if users somehow diffuse what they have developed to others.....he also notes that the transition to user-centered innovation is hard for some companies to swallow.
The online version of the book is available under a Creative Commons license."
The online version of the book is available under a Creative Commons license."
So in other words, Open Source discovers what scientists already knew.
One major problem with open-source is the lack of artists willing to work under such a license. For an example ot what results, see the "new" FreeCIV.
Linux came about and developed because a bunch of people needed it for 'something'. It wasn't easily available so they developed it themselves. The trick was for Linus to provide a starting point and then not get in the way too badly.
Half the secret of encouraging innovation is just to stay out of the way. That's a lot easier with open source than with proprietary products.
Opensource also deals with almost no money, this in return sets the path of a developer to develop the code for his love of it = good product.
Plus the no back-stabbing hidden crap code spyware clean non-malware products also just work, if it doesnt or is unclean others have a oportunity to come and fix it.
More brains = Better, compared to just a few programmers doing it closer source.
Users will have a perspective on products that the programmer never will--namely the perspective of someone who *doesn't understand* how the application works! After designing and/or programming a piece of software for a long time, you can get to know it so well that every aspect of it seems obvious. Yet to a fresh user, who has no clue what is going on behind the scenes, your choice of layout may seem confusing. It has been said (many times) before, but programmers/designers need to *listen* to what users are saying. If something is hard to use, then it should be fixed! And yes, the users of a product will have tons of useful ideas for how to make a product better.
Programmers know too much about the inner workings of a system... and thus they will immediately think of all the reasons why an innovative idea (interface element or feature) won't work. But the naive user, not encumbered by such restrictive thinking, may propose powerful features and novel interaction schemes. Some of these won't work, and some really are too hard to code, but there are many gems.
Some of those curves and trends lead to dead ends. Valid dead ends.
Don't get discouraged when they do, know when to kill it, and move on in a different direction. But do move on.
and yet another reason may be what is "missing" in the open source world, namely the marketing/corporate layer that usually sits between the users and the developers. Think about all the fluff that's between these 2 groups in most large software companies. Without direct interaction much of the potentially valuable communication gets lost or, at best, watered down.
Simple. Because it is written in the interest of getting software written, and not in the interest of promoting a public agenda (at least, most of the time - there are exceptions). Corporate America has more money to spare for advertising, and because they want you to see things their way: rather than letting you configure things with your goals in mind, you have to configure them with DRM, activation, and proprietary formats in mind. Now, open source comes at things from a different angle - they design things saying, "We'll let you configure it yourself - you get full control." The only problem here is that configuration is often all manual, via cryptic configuration files. So why does open source work? Simply because it gives the user what the user wants, even though the user has to work more for it. Why does the GPL work? Because it allows software to be free as in speech, but does not force it to be free as in price.
Do, do not, or delegate to someone else: there is no try.
In regards to Open Office, yes it's free both as in beer and speech, however in terms of quality IMO it is not yet a patch on Microsoft Office by any means.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Structured QC/QA team. That's what makes or breaks a FOSS project.
The interview had nothing to do with open source.
Proprietary software companies have been using usability studies, feedback systems, beta testers for a long time.
Does anybody remember the whole Gnome/Eugenia/end-user flap? Or how about the bounty system that was rejected by KDE developers?
There must be a big myth that open source end-users have more influence with open source projects. In fact, if they don't code they probably have less influence than with proprietary products because there is less of an incentive for a developer to bend his vision, since it's all about "scratching an itch" anyway.
I'm not saying that developers don't listen, it's just that I don't see anything special about end-users of open source projects.
I often think about this very topic...if someone or someones would come along and put the pedal to the medal on polishing those things off, Linux would become one hell of a competitor.
I think it comes down to the hacker mindset, where the interesting problem is king. No one wants to work on the "boring" tasks like cleaning up GUI buttons and interface text. They'd rather work out exotic new gut level kernel code or rough out the next great feature. We're always questing for the next feature and getting it sketched into the system, and never quite get around to inking everything in. I think eventually, this will happen, at least to some degree. In some places it IS happening, but it's going to take time.
-Jay
And thus it's not generally possible for "individual innovations" to be "developed by individual users". Users may know what they want, but they have to translate their ideas through a programming team, and so the end user doesn't recally care if the source is open or not. They'll never see it.
The one area where this statement is not true is where programmers happen to be the target audience -- that it, compilers, editors, operatings systems, and so on, plus some ancillary tools that programmers also find useful and interesting, such as web servers and three hundred IM clients. Oddly enough, most of the open source success stories are in just this category, while the success rate in other application areas is much lower.
And you end up with KDE.
And this is bad why? I can build KDE with as few or as many features as I want and configure the UI to my liking through an intuitive and easily accessible interface.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Here's the "give'em what they want in action:
:-)
;-)
A lot of viable, profitable brand ideas?
"I want a car with tail fins!"
Sold like hotcakes in the 50s.
"No I want a car with a bright pink paint job!"
Still sell quite well to a certain cosmetics company.
"I want a car that flies through the air, and swims underwater!"
Well, the Rolling Stones sang a song about this one.
"Foo to the others. I just want a basic car that goes from point A to Point B!"
Commuter cars are so popular, they're a staple within the industry.
"Nuts to the above. I want a car with a hot tub, and a wet bar, and plenty of space for all the women I'm going to get by driving this pimpmobile!".
Limos are also quite popular.
You see, you research the market demand first, then you find points of commonality in the demands, and then you meet the demand.
Step 3: Profit! (no really, profit! What a concept!)
--
AC
Not true at all. How many times do we hear "well why dont YOU code it then?" That is not accepting user feedback.
That was probably a bit of an extreme example but it is just not true to claim that open source accepts user feedback better than closed source software. User Acceptance Testing is a critical part of the commercial software development lifecycle, something that is sorely missing from open source development. This is a part of the SDLC that has resources allocated to it in commercial software, you say that in open source software it is done if the developer has nothing better to do. A preset budget v an afterthought, this is one instance where commercial software is better (yes I know I am generalising with 'commercial software' as there is much open source commercial software which also has rigorous UAT)
There must be a big myth that open source end-users have more influence with open source projects.
There's more money in OSS than you think. Of course proprietary developers listen to their customers too, but to a lesser extent. The difference is, OSS providers can't hide behind lock-in file formats, obtrusive licenses, and established monopolies if they want to make money. They have to earn it, by listening to users and providing for their needs.
And it's not as easy as a "usability study" would have you believe. It means living with users day in and day out and dealing with all of their problems, not just watching them click a few buttons for a couple of hours and optimizing the menus. A vast majority of the proprietary crap software wouldn't exist if all programmers were forced to then support it from the "hell desk". Fortunately for OSS, many developers *are* supporting end users directly, and code accordingly.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I think it's a matter of the "90/90" rule; the first 90% is the fun part, and the second 90% is the not fun part.
This isn't a paper, it's notes from a presentation. A presentation for a writing class, you clod.
http://siokaos.org/
Of course users are innovators. There is no better person to tell you what would be better in an application or interface than people who use the software day-in and day-out.
I am not talking about your average users though, like Grandma etc..
I mean power users. For example, I am an expert at AutoCAD as I have been using it since its inception, and other CAD programs before that. By the time I was in highschool I was teaching other students how to use AutoCAD version 9.
I have made many suggestions to autodesk based on my useage of their app. While I think its incredibly powerful, its only now begining to incorporate some useability "wishlist" items that have been desired for many many years.
I will concede however, that many of these features require the maturity of the application and the savviness of the developers to reach a certain level before being implementable. I also feel that hardware needed to be there - such as good video cards.
Finally, I also feel that we just have not "gotten it" yet with just about every interface. I have yet to use some interface that is entirely smooth and "intuitive" (functioning as I would desire it to function in a manner that feels entirely natural). This is a pretty obvious statement though, and I know that many applications have their shining points.
As an example, there are aspects of AutoCAD that just kick ass over any other application ever used (by me) - and there are aspects of Softimage and Maya as well that are stunningly fluid, while others are exceedingly obtuse.
If I were an application developer who was worth his salt, I would be seeking the most active users of my applications and solicite their feedback to a much greater degree than simply 'Focus Groups'...
Hopefully, I am preaching to the choir.
-phlux
In truth, no one ever said Linux was for the faint of brain. It's about choice, and those who have no capacity or desire to learn and therefore to choose do not need to run Linux. It's those people that demand that their system work for THEM and not Microsoft or some other company that Linux is for.
Do, do not, or delegate to someone else: there is no try.
In a normal world the software that is well designed, would also be a very pretty and asthetic too. But we don't live in a normal world, we live in a world where people try to controll information and try to force "ownership" like it is physical property.
In this kind of world, it is in financial best interest of proprietary software companies to expeidate what looks good at the expense of what is good - wether it be good as in engineering, design, security, or good as in just plain ole freedom (eg the freedom to copy without being legally assulted)
One example, when UNIX was no longer free to copy, innovation in the X-windows gui space came to a schreaching halt, and then when linux came onto the scene with a free license - it picked right back up again. That growth rate will eventually blow away apple too.
Basically it's boring and expensive and hard work to polish a product.
If something is open source it's usually also free as in beer. It may take a hell of a lot of work to get it to the point where it's a good open source product. Unfortunately that last 20% of the work to polish it off takes 80% of the effort. Most of the time by the time you have a good product there's no one left willing to pay for it to be polished off. The developers themselves also lose interest: After all they could be making a small fortune doing something similar elsewhere, but they do it under the open source model for a variety of reasons - obviously they're usually more motivated by interest than money.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Part of the reason for that is that any teenager can complain and make half-baked "suggestions", even if they barely have any idea of what they're talking about (written by Yours Truly over 4 years ago).
I think if the "write it yourself" attitude completely disappeared, there would be no large open-source projects, because all the developers would burn out due to frustration. :-)
The GP certainly was blunt and lacks a bit of tact. However, IMO, he's right in pointing out the article isn't informative. It seems that certain mods jumped in on this guy and mod'd him up either too early or didn't read the link.
One thought to ponder:
The old way:
Company owns product. Product lacks features. User suggests feature to implement. Company implements. Company owns users innovation and sells it to the user.
The new way:
Community owns product. Community member implements feature or suggests feature to implement and community implements feature. Community owns innovation and members benefit from it.
That is in very simplified terms. But do you see how the old way might lack some incentive for a user to give his innovative ideas to the company only to have them own them and sell them back to him?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free