Slashdot Mirror


BBC Examines Open Source Business Model

twitter writes "The BBC's David Reid attended Euro OSCon in Amsterdam and reports what he learned about the Open Source Model. He sums up the rise of non free software in the 1980s and how people and companies like IBM can make money with free software. From the article: 'The open source movement does not object to making money. The source code may be free, but there is gold in software support, training and publishing.'"

8 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Money in support?? by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you really want to use software built on a model of the software is free but you pay for support?

    There would be a huge incentive to make software hard to use, buggy, etc.

    1. Re:Money in support?? by Sir+Runcible+Spoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

        Do you really want to use software built on a model of the software is free but you pay for support?

      Why not? If you don't like the support you are getting, move elsewhere. There is little to stop you with open source. And when you had all the support you need - stop paying. These are often no even options with closed source.


      There would be a huge incentive to make software hard to use, buggy, etc.

      I don't think you will find it works this way with open source. The guys writing the stuff do so because they are also using it (you have got to pay your bills after all). And if you don't fix it someone else will.
  2. Thar be gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's also gold in the software customization market, like a VAR would in the propriatary market.

    Being able to take a free foundation and tailor it perfectly for your business model is much better than trying to wrap your company around a canned, closed source solution.

    Whats good for the customer is good for the consultant.

  3. Re:Gold in software support, training and publishi by dalutong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "there is gold in software support, training and publishing."

    thats all well and good.. doesnt help a programmer pay the bills though.


    Sure it does -- the company gets revenue through support, etc and pays programmers to make software so they have a product to support.

    --

    What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
  4. Does that make it better than the alternative? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to say that Open Source software can lead to a viable business strategy, then I don't think anyone can really argue with that. There are companies that sell bottled water and others that sell magical stones, so there's got to be some way to make money stuff that is given away for free.

    But is it a better strategy than actually selling proprietary software? Perhaps, but then again, it depends on how you define "better strategy". The whole point of keeping software closed is to keep control over the product. By doing so, it is possible to make money through lucrative licensing schemes. And the best part is that you only have to write the software once in order to license it multiple times.

    With Open Source software, the product is generally available for free from any number of vendors, so such a situation limits the licensing fees that can be generated. Also, because of the nature of Open Source software, customers may choose any number of other service companies to do customization work. This is not the case with Closed Source, as the company that owns the product maintains strict control over who has the ability to do customization work on it.

    On top of all this, how lucrative is "Service" anyway? In general, a product-driven strategy has a better margin than a service-driven strategy. A product only has to be written once, so the costs are all up front. In a service company, each project requires a certain number of employees, and as projects increase, so does the required headcount. There is always a growing cost of payroll associated with growth in a service company, so much so that as the number of engineers increase, the profit margin falls significantly because of increased costs such as HR and "non-essential" staffing overhead.

    This is not to say that there isn't money to be made here. In fact, there is a lot of money to be made by keeping projects to a minimum and keeping headcount low. However, a company with any aspirations to become large and self-sustaining must rely on a strong product base and not solely on service.

    But it doesn't mean that Closed Source is better. Just different. In many ways (such as from the point of view of the customer), Open Source represents a much better solution than Closed Source offerings. However, from a business standpoint, it's hard to imagine why anyone would see OSS as a better alternative to CSS.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
  5. I beg to differ. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I do not believe that businesses with a product that is related to Open Source will be, or are, the main driver of Open Source software development. The companies that use Open Source software to get a job done, and that have a product that has nothing to do with Open Source, are the most important ones. If you trace the money that pays for software to its source, those folks are it - software vendors just work for them. All of those companies devote some money to writing non-differentiating, cost-center software. They can distribute the cost and risk of such development by using Open Source for all enabling, non-differentiating technology. I've written a paper that goes into this. You can read it here.

    Bruce

    1. Re:I beg to differ. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
      One of our main differentiators is control. Rather than sell 1/4 inch holes, we're selling the ability to drill the size of hole you want, and not be limited to the drill sizes they have at the store.

      Bruce

  6. Re:Parent is NOT troll by LDoggg_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Parent should not be modded "Troll". He brings up a valid point: if someone offered me a free car and said they would offer "service and support" for a fee, I would immediatly assume the car must be prone to having problems.

    The problem with that analogy is that support is never free. Vendors of proprietary closed source software also charge for service and support.

    --

    "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle