Independent Software Vendors Get Organized

joshorion writes "The Organization of Independent Software Vendors has just launched with the purpose of helping the community create and market their independent software. Experts contribute helpful articles, and members can make use of the forums. The site is sponsored by many notable companies, primarily CoffeeCup, but also CNet, Tucows, VanDyke, and Lunarpages."

Comments

It's about damn time.

[Mikachu]

Finally. This should have been created a long time ago. Independent software companies have it really hard; it's difficult to compete with the big corporations, who have enough money to control the market through advertising and teaming with other companies to monopolize. This should be a good start at fighting back.

Good idea, I think.

Watch these folks carefully!

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

From their About section:

The OISV is the Largest Organization of Independent software vendors, marketers, retailers and distributors in the World! Our membership represents thousands of software professionals who create, sell and supply shareware and trial software in 90 countries.

So, I guess they're an organization of mass-market proprietary software vendors. That's fine, but why do I worry that they'll pretend to actually represent the vast majority of software developers (who actually custom software which may or may not be proprietary)? It even looks like they're trying to pass off their "site technologies" list as a list of endorsements from major open-source projects. I really hope this isn't just a front for DRM proponents.

On the other hand, they'll probably be against software patents, and in favour of real open standards (e.g. ODF) and net neutrality, so maybe I shouldn't be so worried. Their mission statement seems good, in principle.

Re:Watch these folks carefully!

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Should have hit preview...

s/who actually custom software/who actually develop custom software/

Re:Watch these folks carefully!

[Eivind]

People, especially those outside the industry, continously miss this point.

When you say you're a programmer, peoples first thougth is that you had some hand in creating some software that can be bougth shrink-wrapped somewhere.

As you point out, that's really the exception. My guess is that atleast 90% of all the programming dont today is never ever going to end up being sold shrink-wrap.

Re:Watch these folks carefully!

[caseydk]

Some estimates say that as much as 90-95% of software development is used 100% in house and will never even be seen - let alone used - by anyone else. From all the custom apps that I've built in various jobs, this feels right, but I have nothing to back it up.

Disclaimer... I guess I'm technically a charter member of OSIV.

Re:Watch these folks carefully!

[Eivind]

Alan Cox had a good take on that when visiting us at BLUG in Bergen. He was lecturing a large hall of people, say 600 persons, and where taking questions.

Someone, presumably a journalist, asked if having everything Open Source wouldn't mean all programmers to loose their well-paying jobs.

Alan didn't reply, but he asked two questions: (paraphrasing from memory)

• How many here have been, at some point, paid to write or maintain software ? Hundreds of hands went up. (nerd audience, naturally, who goes to a Alan Cox lecture a saturday evening ?)
• How many here have ever been paid to write proprietary software that can be bougth shrink-wrapped ? Literally 2-3 hands went up.

OISV

[William Robinson]

The logo of the OISV is a brand of a professional in the software industry and can be trusted wherever it is displayed.

How are they going to achieve this? Will there be evaluation of companies?

The mission statement looks kool, but does not explain WTF 'independent' means. Am I qualified if I am running a startup?

End of the day,seems to be a good effort to bring quality software to us.

Re:OISV

[Anonymous Coward]

RE:"but does not explain WTF 'independent' means"

lolz!, for all we know this could have been set up by the BSA, or Adobe, or Microsoft.

Re: OISV

[gidds]

My first thought was that they really meant 'independent of Microsoft'...

Independent?

[k1980pc]

I guess almost all software developers are independent (Some people in my company still don't think so - that's off topic). How does any vendor qualify for this independence? Mostly, I feel what they plan to come out with is a guild for small businesses. Anybody who codes in their basement and sells on net using paypal or any business that has, say less than 10 employees. It seems a good idea but I am sure it won't take long for some corporation to sabotage it. You know, make it a breeding ground for good or innovative ideas and then buy it out. Already we can see the signs in Microsoft Office Live and stuff.

Hmm..Why am I so pessimistic about this..

Re:Independent?

[SlappyBastard]

"How does any vendor qualify for this independence?"

They had to be one of the 15 republics that broke off from the former Soviet Union.

Or perhaps that's the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Re:Independent?

[CastrTroy]

I often ask the same question with music. A band would be independant if they produced their own music, and didn't sign under a label. But then there's so called Independant labels. How big can a label be before not being independant. Maybe if they aren't part of the RIAA then they are independant, but what if a bunch of non-RIAA labels joined forces? Would they cease to be independant? Once all these software companies join forces, are they really independant? For me Independant music often just means not good enough (good is subjective) to be mainstream. P-diddy/Puff daddy/Sean Combs has his own record company and therefore I assume produces all his own music, yet I would highly doubt that anyone would refer to him as an independant artist.

Re:Independent?

[ergo98]

I guess almost all software developers are independent (Some people in my company still don't think so - that's off topic). How does any vendor qualify for this independence?

This organization looks like bunk. The origin of ISV came from the bowels of Microsoft - it was used to denote independent vendors creating software for the Windows platform (e.g. they were creating for Microsoft's platform, but were independent from Microsoft - ISVs). Using it as a general term for software firms is inane and nonsensical.

Furthermore, their about page claims:

The OISV is the Largest Organization of Independent software vendors, marketers, retailers and distributors in the World! Our membership represents thousands of software professionals who create, sell and supply shareware and trial software in 90 countries.

Yet their main page says that the first 2000 sign-ups get a free t-shirt (OMG A FREE T-SHIRT!), with a scary "There are 1906 pending applications". OMG! HURRY! SIGN UP NOW! GET THAT FREE T-SHIRT.

I looks like another bullshit "someone trying to make a career out of sign-up fees" organization.

Re:Independent?

[ergo98]

I should add the clarification that I don't know what fee(s) they charge, if any. Nonetheless, self-employeeing through toothless organizations is hardly a new or novel concept.

And somehow I suspect that Microsoft's Partner program is a world larger and more popular than this one.

Re:Independent?

[AuMatar]

You mean not crappy enough to be mainstream, right?

What is notable about "CoffeeCup"?

[smallpaul]

"many notable companies, primarily CoffeeCup"? Also, is this group supposed to include ISVs like Adobe and SAP?

Re:What is notable about "CoffeeCup"?

[joshorion]

I believe CoffeeCup spearheaded the creation of the organization and development of the site, but certainly they aren't the largest company in the group. Poor wording on my part.

I doubt Adobe and other huge ISVs will join (or even be accepted), since they don't need the same level of help and organization. The OISV focus is really more on helping the little guys.

Oxymoron

[GbrDead]

Is this organization something like "The Lone Rangers"?

Re:Oxymoron

[fahrbot-bot]

For those that don't get this, it's from the movie Airheads. A three-member rock group that calls themselves, "The Lone Rangers". The DJ queries:

Ian [DJ] (Joe Mantegna): "The Lone Rangers?"
Chazz (Brendan Fraser): "Yeah...what's wrong with that?"
Ian: "There's 3 of you, you're not exactly lone."
Chazz: "I have no idea what you're saying right now."

There's actually a fansite for The Lone Rangers

w00t!

[rehashed]

FREE TSHIRT!

Your post rephrased (parody is fair use)

[linvir]

Those who write, promote or sell proprietary software betray each and every one of those ideals. A more accurate statement would read something like: The OISV is a co-operative of software developers, marketers, distributors, and retailers that combine their thoughts and ideas to make money by denying people the freedom to use, study, modify and share computer programs.

A more accurate statement would read something like: I hate proprietary software, but am far too bigoted to acknowledge that this is nothing more than my personal preference. Instead I see it as an absolute universal truth, and anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with me is evil.

Re:Your post rephrased (parody is fair use)

[10101001 10101001]

>>>The OISV is based on the values of equality, democracy, honesty, solidarity and helping others achieve their goals.

>>Those who write, promote or sell proprietary software betray each and every one of those ideals.

>A more accurate statement would read something like: I hate proprietary software, but am far too bigoted to acknowledge that this is nothing more than my personal preference.

Or, you know, he could be right.

Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion).

Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms).

Being honest means being fair. And there is no fairness in excluding the ability of others to profit from your work (exclusion of such is an act of jealousy or greed). So, the promotion of copyrighted works is effectively being unfair.

They may show solidarity, though only with each other, which goes against their equality stance (they're excluding non-proprietary software vendors).

And finally, while their solidarity with each other may very well be helping each other achieve their goals, clearly their solidarity works against the efforts of people who wish to dissolve copyright, so they're certainly not helping me with my goals.

If you wish to debate me on these points (as they are rather abbreviated), feel free to respond. If I am bigoted on the subject of copyright, it is on the belief that it is hard to justify.

Re:Your post rephrased (parody is fair use)

[LBU.Zorro]

"Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion)."

I disagree with copyright, I don't think it serves a purpose. But this statement is false. It does not matter that more exclusion is created, for equality it must be that each person has equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Copyright is available to all. Therefore it is equal. The issue of legal costs of enforcing it is a different matter, and that does limit some unequally. Equality does not mean no exclusion. You have locks on your door, that's not 'equal' by your definition, people can't come in and raid your fridge anytime they want. But I'd argue that it is equal, equal opportunity, you too can lock your door and have your private space, you too can copyright your software and have your private code. Work against the system by all means, but don't pretend it's something it's not - that won't fix anything and is just going to slow you down.

"Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms)." - Again you are redefining democracy, democray is not all encompassing. People from another country cannot vote in your elections. Democracy currently only exists within subgroups. The citizens of the USA, for example are in a select group, and far from the majority, yet the chinese don't get to vote. Within the group democracy applies, within the OSIV, it's democratic, unless you join, and accept responsibility for your actions you don't get to vote. As I recall, a good explanation of the limitations of democracy is as follows, 5 animals stuck starving in the desert, 4 wolves and a sheep. Democracy says the sheep dies. Not exactly fair.

"Being honest means being fair" - No. I disagree, being honest means being honest. When you are honest you tell the truth. It does not mean that you are fair to people. The concepts are different, specifically because 'fairness' is subjective. People will see different things as fair. You telling the truth to someone can be considered as unfair to another, since it can impart information they didn't wish to them to know.

"And there is no fairness in excluding the ability of others to profit from your work" as I mentioned before, fairness is relative, if I got a cup of water from the bottom of a well (long climb etc, lots of work to get it) and you feel you should be able take the water from me and drink it or sell / give it to another? That's your idea of fairness? Weird. Personally I believe that if I've worked hard to get a cup of water I should be able to drink it, or give it to a person of my chosing, not have you take it and do with it as you wish. Now, the water is a finite resource, true, but if it were a pipe, or pump so it wasn't finite (for the purpose of the visualisation). Would you then be happy to take the pump and do as you will with it?

Fairness in software is the ability to do it yourself. Nowhere is it written that you should have a free ride. To be able to use another's time for your own benefit (although I dislike the fact we keep re-inventing the wheel). Now, I appreciate the good work that the open source community puts out, I love the fact that it's under an open license. BUT it does not mean that I have to do the same, nor that there is something wrong with me not doing the same. I won't get into software patents because I believe they are very wrong and they *somewhat* hinder the ability to DIY.

"They may show solidarity, though only with each other, which goes against their equality stance (they're excluding non-proprietary software vendors)." - they are a group working against what they perceive to be the inequality they are facing. They are not a campaigning group out to ensure equality for all. Nor are

Re:Your post rephrased (parody is fair use)

[10101001 10101001]

>>Proprietary software works through copyright, a grant of privileges (a monopoly) to a very small portion of the population. This alone isn't equality by definition (the fact that others can have their own monopolies doesn't change this; it only creates more exclusion).

>It does not matter that more exclusion is created, for equality it must be that each person has equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Yes, more exclusion doesn't matter. The problem is that you can't grant everyone the same privilege on the same work. So, you only give opportunity for *some* people.

>Copyright is available to all. Therefore it is equal.

The ability to copyright something is avaiable to all. That doesn't mean everyone has an equal opportunity to copyright an expression of an idea (good luck copyright a cast of a talking mouse with big ears, a talking duck, and a talking dog that frequently orgy with a female mouse, female duck, and a non-talking male dog). I wasn't even alive when those were first copyrighted.

>Equality does not mean no exclusion.

Of course not.

>You have locks on your door, that's not 'equal' by your definition

Actually, the locks are. Anyone can try to put locks on my door. Whether my grant of the land I am on is equal is another matter.

>you too can lock your door and have your private space,

Yes, I can physically lock my door and have a private space.

>you too can copyright your software and have your private code.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with copyright. It is not copyright that makes my code private. It is my not distributing it or encrypting it. But once I release it to the world (ie, anyone else), any hopes of my to keep it "private" is bound by law, not by some physicality. How can a grant to keep something private when it is not be seen to be my ability to privatize part of the public sphere? And how is that *not* an inequality?

>>Further, it's not very democratic (a democracy would work based on the wants/needs of the majority, which very much would mean that useful things would be available to the majority without exclusionary terms).

>Again you are redefining democracy, democray is not all encompassing.

Nor did I claim it was.

>People from another country cannot vote in your elections.

And so they have no control over the copyright laws in my land. But they surely have control over the laws in *their* land.

>Democracy currently only exists within subgroups. The citizens of the USA, for example are in a select group, and far from the majority, yet the chinese don't get to vote.

So? Do you think this somehow changes that the US, being a democracy (it's not, btw; it's a constitutional republic), would grant itself not the need to pay for any IP laws on Chinese works?

>Within the group democracy applies, within the OSIV, it's democratic, unless you join, and accept responsibility for your actions you don't get to vote.

It's democratic to the extent of the OSIV and complete ignorant of the country it exists in. Yea, that's great. And tyrants are merely supports of democracies of one.

>As I recall, a good explanation of the limitations of democracy is as follows, 5 animals stuck starving in the desert, 4 wolves and a sheep. Democracy says the sheep dies. Not exactly fair.

And did I say democracy was fair? If they don't think democracy is fair, then why the bloody hell are they claiming to be democratic?

>>Being honest means being fair

>No. I disagree, being honest means being honest. When you are honest you tell the truth. It does not mean that you are fair to people. The concepts are different, specifically because 'fairness' is subjective. People will see different things as fair. You telling the truth to someone can be considered as unfair to another, since it can impart information they didn't wish to them to know.

But honesty is more than being simply tru

Re:Your post rephrased (parody is fair use)

[LBU.Zorro]

"The ability to copyright something is avaiable to all. That doesn't mean everyone has an equal opportunity to copyright an expression of an idea (good luck copyright a cast of a talking mouse with big ears, a talking duck, and a talking dog that frequently orgy with a female mouse, female duck, and a non-talking male dog). I wasn't even alive when those were first copyrighted." - I love the disney description :), and I agree.

With regards to the democracy thing, I obviosuly wasn't entirely clear, my apologies. I meant that saying you are a democratic organisation only means that you use democracy within your organisiation, not that 'outsiders' can vote and decide for you. A tyrant is not a democracy of one, because his vote applies to more than himself. Just because an organisiation is democratic does not mean it has to do the will of the planet. It should do the majority will of the group, not humans everywhere. I objected to the fact you felt that as it was 'democratic' it should do the will of all humans everywhere. That's not the point.

I know the water analogy was not accurate, I'd hoped you'd get my point inspite of that.. I know it's not the same, it's information not something physical, no nothing is 'taken'. I agree, if you want to keep something private or just for yourself, keep it to yourself. Don't sell it to other people.

BUT - within the law it does make some sense. But there's no moral comeback for unilaterally using the sweat from another's brow. Yes they were stupid enough to release it to the world, and you could 'punish' them for that stupidity, but morally taking advantage of someone isn't quite acceptable.

Ignoring the taxes and breathing, they are a seperate entity to the issue of copyright. Breathing could easily be argued to be a fair exchange. Taxes, well I don't wish to start on them.

"Then they probably shouldn't have said "equality" in their list of causes. Or they should have clarified they're only interested in equality for them compared to large corporations. That's not much of an equality from my perspective." - In their 'list of causes' I would understand equality to mean their correcting of an inequality they see. I believe it's an unwarranted extension to the meaning to assume global inclusion of all inequalities. You couldn't even begin to start to think about the level of inequality globally... Software? Copyright? How about food? Your argument that they ought not mention equality in, what appears to me to be, a very limited domain seems somewhat hypocritical. You are using a computer which puts you well above the equality line...

"Sure, they can look out for themselves. And the second they pretend that they're looking out for more themselves by using vague, grandious language, I'll call them out on it because it's fun for me to do. Oh, and it's me looking out for myself." - My entire argument is that you are placing spin and biased interpretation on a simplistic list of words. Words that most people would see as being limited to the group itself, not to humanity as a whole.

">I believe copyright has no justification, that patents have no justification, but I had to call you on the points because they were (in my opinion) not true.

So, now truth is subjective. Interesting..." - Actually I was acknowledging that I'm not perfect and could be proven wrong. I was taking it on faith that you believed them to be true - else why would you write them? I believe those points to be not true, you believe (or believed) them to be true. I have enough doubt to, in general, acknowledge I could be wrong..

I disagree that their PR was a load of bullshit. It didn't impress me, granted, but it didn't appear to be outright lies. Yes they may have assumed, or hoped that people would spin it to their benefit, but on the face of it, considered dispassionately it's not actually untrue, or even too blatently spun.

I agree entirely with your closing paragraph, I've never seen the value in copyright, that was never my point. And I apologise if I missed your original point - it appeared to me to be an argument against both the organisation and on copyright.

"Independent"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Independent"? Independent of what? Is e.g. Microsoft independent? AFAIK, they are not dependent on anyone else.

ASP fork

[BortQ]

This new group is a direct fork of the old Association of Shareware Professionals. Some of the ASP board members resigned in disgust and started up this OISV. I agree with some of their points that the ASP is hopelessly stuck in the past. I joined the OISV to see where it goes (and to get the free T-shirt. I thought that showed an excellent marketing spark that bodes well for the organization).

Here's a mass email I got that shares some of the dirt:

Subject: CoffeeCup Relinquishes Our ASP Membership

Fellow ASP Member,

I am sorry to say that the current board has lost Scott Swedorski as a Board member of the ASP over issues he strongly believed in. One issue was me. I had no idea until today that Scott and Ryan Smith nominated me for a Lifetime Achievement Award. I was very honored they did that, it was nice. The board voted this down though even though I was the only person nominated by more than one person. Scott got fed up and resigned for very good reasons. It just didn't make sense not to give me the Award unless it was personal.

Now honestly I don't have a chip on my shoulder or care that much about a plastic award. I have lots of them and a successful software business to back it up. Success counts, not a pat on the back from the industry.

What I do care about is respect. Saying that myself, Winzip, or C|net can not be recognized by the ASP because we don't post in newsgroups as much as other people is a farce. We run successful businesses and do not have time to post as much as those people that are less successful. Those are just the facts. I have been a member for 10 years when most companies that grew as much as we did would have left and never stood by the ASP or it's members again.

I have talked to and helped more people one on one by e-mail and at SIC then any current board member of the ASP or the SIC. There is no doubt about that. I have also brought some deeper thought to my posts in .marketing and hope I have helped you where simple answers were not the best guides to get you through day to day.

I have also had countless people join because 'I' was a member and many companies including Tucows came to SIC and joined the ASP because I invited them, not by the SIC or the ASPs invitation. Download.com started participating more because I asked them too and I talked with them for many hours over it. As some of you are aware we threw a party at SIC every year for members that cost us between $5,000 and $20,000 a year. And not a single thank you from either side of the street, ever.

The ASP is in trouble people. The budget is bad and it's marketing to get new members is even in worse shape. The logo and the Website are so awful, I would never join if I saw them. There are too many people with good intentions but there is no action. (and action beats intentions every day of the week)

When we volunteered to create the new ASP Website 1 1/2 years ago we never heard a thing from the Board or Ed Pulliam. We are the most qualified in Web Marketing and Web Design of any member the ASP has ever had but the board did not want 'me' to do it. They did not contact us and refused our help because they do not want to acknowledge that we are the face of change for the ASP. The way things were done for the last 10 years is now over. If the ASP wants to succeed or even survive they will need new voices of change and they will need them quickly.

You will all need a new board soon so vote well; and I am sorry, Ed Pulliam is not qualified to be President of the ASP. He is full of great intentions but no true action. I have been to his Website at www.ouisoft.com and if this is the direction he wants the ASP Website to go in, the ASP is in bad shape. It's not personal, just an observation that I am sure many can see. He failed at the ASP marketing plan and should not be president. If he worked for CoffeeCup I would have let him go. It's not personal though, I am sure h

Re:ASP fork

[Anonymous Coward]

"This new group is a direct fork of the old Association of Shareware Professionals"

There's no "old" ASP. The group still stands.

"Some of the ASP board members resigned in disgust and started up this OISV."

No, one board member (not "some") resigned from the board and remains a member of the ASP. The OISV is the creation of one former member of the ASP who left when he decided he wasn't getting the respect he felt he deserved. He got angry and left (and spammed the entire membership with the letter you are quoting). He was not a board member, just a rank-and-file member of the ASP. As I said there was one board member who did quit the board but did not quit the ASP. He happens to be an employee of the founder of the OISV.

You can't even burn a straw man properly.

[Ivan Matveitch]

That was a mediocre attack on arguments I have not made.

independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition, the vendors are not independent if they are organized. I would suggest a title "Independent software vendors lose their independency due to organization".

Re:Comment rating position

[henriquemaia]

You raised a good point here. I confess that with the rating far right I ended reading very interesting post rated +1.

Helpful article about cross-platform development

[wysiwia]

Just in case ISVs want to develop efficiently cross-platform application there's a helpful article at NewsForge (http://software.newsforge.com/software/05/04/22/1 859243.shtml?tid=89).

O. Wyss

Re:Irony in their statement of principles.

[Bloke down the pub]

Hi, Richard. How's things coming along with the Hurd?

It's about damn time-Myth busters

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Slashdot's two favourite myths back to back. Market control through advertising, and collusion. Free hint, ISV's are going to have an uphill climb even if there was none of the above "myths". Plus to add to their woes, open-source is making "software as a livelyhood" harder. I don't see anyone mentioning that "cost of entry" along with all the other "myths".

Watch shareware carefully!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your two questions exclude shareware authors. No one's "paying them". They're paying themselves (assuming people even pay for their shareware). Second the majority of shareware isn't "shrink-wrapped", but downloaded.*

*Proof that you need more than just a new-fangled distribution method to succeed.

You are qualified if they say you are...

[NotQuiteReal]

Membership to the OSIV is upon approval only and members are accepted on their past, current or future involvement in the software industry

Sounds like you are "in" if the other cool kids like you.

With no objective criteria (sales volume, number of employees, anything?) it is pretty vague.

Not bad at all.

[Ivan Matveitch]

Though lately I have been otherwise occupied, eating babies and dancing the waltz with Hitler.