Innovation is only a small part of how businesses grow and make money. Kodak was deep in the film photography business... everything about the industry and everything about the company in someway had a connection. These connections and channels of revenue are built, established, then reinforced with assets. This is a process that takes decades. And as long as there are sales, it all works. When the well dries however, the whole ecosystem collapses, and innovation has little to do with it. It's all about damage control, and making up for it elsewhere.
Digital is a completely different beast than film. Kodak started at square 1 with digital cameras, as did everyone else. Those who are winning in the digital photography space have little to owe to their film camera roots... apart from maybe their brand recognition. Digital cameras are computers with a lens. They require sophisticated software from firmware to computer software for the users... It's insanely more complex. And the catch? They can't sell anymore film, development and production costs are higher, and margins are slimmer.
In Kodak's case, they probably couldn't make up for it even if they became #1 in digital cameras. Their old corporate infrastructure, all their assets, and everything they knew how to do well would have had to go, and if that is what equals Kodak, then honestly nothing could have saved them.
Well, I'm mainly talking about the Japanese console gaming industry. Games will never go away, so if you're a competent dev house then there will always be work. But who is really making money and how?
Sony bet biggest on online distribution with their PSP Go which was a catastrophe. So if console games aren't being distributed online, and the storefronts are shrinking, that is a sign of major turmoil. That's really all I am saying. And if you prefer the Wall Street perspective, an industry that isn't growing is as good as dead.
Microsoft is winning right now, but it isn't really because of good titles or better games (they come out on ps3 also), but more due to the success of xbox live.
As for gaming cycles, ps = 1994, ps2 = 2000, ps3 = 2006, ps4 != 2012.
Although overall sales will always be good in some form or another, the blockbusters will take up more and more of the pie, and the titles that fail to brake even will continue to increase. The fact that most hits are sequels already proves that new innovation that leads to uncharted success is becoming rarer than ever before. And uncharted territory is where real growth is at.
There is just too much work between idea and release.
Facts: Been going for 25 years. Last time I went, a lot of the stores I remembered were either gone, or their game section was half the size. Didn't see new stores replacing them either. The used game stores have all had a hard time and sell more DVDs and game cards now to make ends meet. Game sections of major electronic stores like Yodobashi and Bic Camera have all shrunk. Titles released for XBOX and PS are fewer and further between with more sequels and less publishers. Bandai merged with Namco. Square merged with Enix. Tecmo merged with Koei. Publishers often mask the state of their development studios, but at lower levels it gets worse. Many development houses focus on one game for years, and if their game fails, they fail with it. SNK failed. Sega failed. Midway failed. As a recent example Team Bondi of LA Noire failed. Every time the next generation of consoles come out, huge consolidation and failure occurs. A lot of companies fail to scale up their capabilities to meet new development demands.
So now it's more like making big budget movies: huge costs and lengthy development cycles that carry fatal risks. Obviously the industry will never go away, but it definitely isn't how it used to be.... and I'm mainly referring to console games.
Just look at Japan. The stores are either gone or half the size. Building games just sucks as a business, and like a failing movie industry, each studio loses life every time a game flops until they are either acquired or go kaputz. Bigger budgets. Fewer titles. Less players. Lack of interest. The end.
Here is the scenario. Workers do stuff secretively because they do not want their supervisors to know. Now the supervisors start to monitor those workers so that they can see when they are being naughty, except, they themselves are not being monitored, so the workers are outraged when they find out the supervisor was watching youtube on the job, which entails monitoring the workers to make sure they aren't watching youtube...
So who watches the watchers?
First, one doesn't need to monitor someone to undo secretiveness. For example, have their monitor displayed on a public wall. Them knowing that what they are doing is public will already alter their behavior. Openness makes people behave. No watchers.
Second, the idea that the workers need to be watched would apply to all workers at all levels. In other words, why stop with the workers? Or the supervisors? Or the branch managers? Or the VP or CEO? Is the one person that behaves without being monitored the one? To think that monitoring only should apply to a certain class or category of people already implies prejudice:
"I am better, ergo, don't watch me."
If members of a system or group can all watch one another, and they all have the capability to challenge anyone, then consider that system well monitored.
Dangerous = Hide it, is the idiots solution. Because if anything, information will want to get out, and to assume that this information is unique, or that it cannot be replicated, or that it is the only time anyone will come up with it is idiotic.
On the other hand, recognizing any information that has more potential for harm, is a good thing. And there are intelligent ways to go about it. The military already classifies its information and enforces boundaries to some extent. This is just an example of it already being done in some form or another.
Deciding who deserves to know is where it is tricky, but just assuming all information should be free and out there is actually not very responsible. Rather, getting the right information to the right people is what being responsible really entails.
On the personal level, we should have some control over our own information, our identity, and what harms us. We should have that right, especially if the government already has that right (and uses it against us).
I get that if someone copies a work with no revenue, they cannot be sued for lost revenue. But if copyright is owned by the copyright owner, and is their right to not allow copying, then I do not understand how someone who obviously copied something can still be innocent. They would be guilty, but not liable for damages. They should at most have to pay for the plaintiff's legal fees if being taken to court is what it took.
In the case of film and music there are huge disproportionate criminal fines in place, and you'd think it would be the same with journalism... but I guess the lobbyists weren't aggressive enough to steer the law their way!?
Right, those are all upsides of legitimate copies. In your case the upsides make you pay, not the downsides.
I mentioned fear and guilt as two possible downsides. The law and the relevant ad campaigns usually play on both. But my point was that they are kind of weak, and that yes, the upsides are where the choices are being made, of which you proved to be a perfect example.
We can definitely add peace-of-mind to the upside, but this is part of the service which the pirates provide, so in this case the pirates are failing in service... If pirates had equal or better service, only the downsides would come into play.
Pricing is part of the service. And pirates have advantage over price, but if they also have advantages over everything else, then they really have everything going for them.
The only downside is guilt of not paying and fear of getting caught. Guilt will make a lot of people with the money to pay as long as they get what they want. Fear will make cowards and the paranoids pay, but then again, no one is really scared of getting caught downloading a game.
It's advertising, and because we know better about monitors, it's clearly not for us. But think of, say, laundry detergent commercials. The latest always makes your clothes whiter and removes more stains than the "leading brand". Well, the commercial has been the same for 50 years. And so have the detergents, more or less...
All that matters is the warning at the bottom. Think of cigarettes. They kill you, but as long as they told you so.
Well, as long as you stick to compsci and seek a compsci job, then you can't really lose with an MIT degree. It's like a Harvard law degree or a UNC basketball scholarship. They will want you, until you mess it up, not the other way around.
Exactly. Why? There is no money in the truth. The truth is often boring. But there will always be a market for skewing, spinning, damage control, damage infliction, and politics. It has never been about what is relevant to us, because nothing really is until it makes the news. The news defines its own relevance, and unfortunately it is on the terms of the buyers of the news, which is extremely detrimental to "real" reporting - which by the way is also a fairly abstract concept defined by "real reporters" which are also mythical creatures. All those big name anchors just read papers handed to them. They happily adjust to the network they work for, i.e. the guys that give them their paychecks, which is a valid reason. Brian Williams is a great guy doing a great job and is great on Late Night, but the more he is likable the more effective he is at delivering the message that he is being paid to be delivered. He is great at it.
Why would I care about Iraq if I never watch the news? No chance of it crossing my mind. And it wouldn't even be in the news if not for the war none of us had a say in.
Everything is happening without us, because the news is never about us.
The parents could just look at themselves... A *ton* of pro athletes have pro athlete dads/moms. There is a reason why a lot of brothers and sisters make it together to the top tier. It's in their DNA, and the family knows it.
And honestly, you want to look at the twitch muscle gene? How about height and build? You have to paint a picture that predicts accurately a child's build at 18. There is no one gene.
It's a simple as this: Bankers are gamblers who snort coke and do whores 7 days a week (exaggerated for effect). Wall Street is where they gamble with our lives.
Saying no bonuses is easy, but it doesn't change the fact that they are gamblers and they gamble for incentive.
Modern capitalism works like this: 1) Someone starts a company fueled by passion and innovation. Good people with good ideas at this level. Big debt and little pay. 2) Only a small number survive. But the company loses its human moral elements as it grows and becomes more successful by prioritizing business over people. 3) By the time it goes public it behaves like a psychopath and fully pits staff and customers against profit. They battle their unions, battle their costs, and try and make as much money as possible. 4) Stocks = gambling chips. Bad people moving huge sums just for better numbers. 5) Profit!
Any big corp lives and dies by their stock price, and that is their number one priority. They will sacrifice anything for it, and that has given bankers huge leverage. And it causes big corps to do very very naughty behavior. And we all suffer. Wall Street is where they gamble with our lives.
Actually, no. AC-ness has nothing to do with it holding water. Rather, stating the scientific paradigm is wholly suspect is what makes AC suspect to anyone that knows better. Unfortunately, those who are similar tend to gather, and we continue our battle. But since education is progressive, eventually what is more accurate will catch on. The problem is with those who've stopped learning. Natural causes will take care of them eventually though, ergo with every generation we know better.
If I go by "Joe", my identity is Joe regardless of what my "real" identity is. So before any security or policy or correctness argument, the enforcement of "real" names resulted in a "broken identity" platform more than anything else. And now, by allowing "any" identity, all they are doing is satisfying the first prerequisite for "real" identity. Identity is sustained by utility, not by legal records.
There is another angle though. Wall Street writes its own news, and they sound alarms intentionally. They then bank on the recovery to every involuntary reaction by the market. Just another way the real players cheat to make big money. Most day traders and independent financial advisers and everyone that takes cable news seriously are all being played. You have to be in the club to make money. They may be watching the same news, but I guarantee they hear it differently.
And they don't care who knows about any of this either, because all anyone can do is save yourself anyway, and the victim pool only keeps growing and growing.
The triple A ratings on mortgage backed derivatives was no accident. They rode the bubble, they rode the burst, and they got bailed out, aka financial innovation in the USA.
Software can emulate anything. A good example may be video games. Software can create gravity and realistic 3D environments and everything else, but that isn't to say anything that it creates is itself "software". AI is the same.
There is no real gravity in the computer, and the computer doesn't create real gravity. There is no real intelligence in the computer, and the computer doesn't create real intelligence.
Computer running software may be a good analogy to the brain running whatever it runs. But it is only an analogy.
Some think that artificial intelligence seeks to emulate the real intelligence of humans. But most of it is just software, and has little to do with real intelligence.
There are certain problems that AI can solve, but those solutions are not "intelligent" but rather are merely "formulas" programmed by intelligent people (computer scientists).
We get excited when these formulas emulate what a real person might do, and when we can hide the underlying machine, but that is not to say we know how people think or even how we are implemented. We are just getting better at programming.
There are some great advancements in cognitive science, and the more we discover about how the brain works, the less it looks like it could be run by any "code". No intel inside. The brain is an organ that grows and dies, and takes its memories with it. If anything, it programs itself.
That is not to say there haven't been advancements in AI. It too is incredibly useful.
Ya, and they certainly got a lot of help to recreate Shakespeare... like human help.
These monkeys were no ordinary monkeys either. First and foremost, they BEHAVE.
It's like he didn't even understand the expression as GP said, yet went out to demonstrate his misunderstanding literally.... and that is what makes this story interesting:)
OSS is a big success, and it produces great product. But the resistance is not in it's failures, but rather, in everything it lacks.
Since when was Stallman selling anything? Evangelists have little to do with marketing. Stallman is selling an idea if anything, and that idea sold, ergo the huge success of OSS. That success is not in the market, but in mind share and in utility. That was the goal I presume. And it has been a huge success.
OSS software does not suck. Or else Red Hat wouldn't have a business. But they sell service, and they cater to a market. They understand that market, and know how to sell to it, and they have the people hired full time who go out selling to that market. They have customer support (they sell it actually), and they know their customer.
Of course we love what we make even if it sucks, but interesting choice of words. "Market" refers to people buying stuff, but OSS isn't necessarily for sale. Nor do people advertise or "sell" as do those who cater towards "markets". Red Hat sells service, not OSS.
So, "resist" is not the reason why OSS isn't selling. The problem is more about the lack of sales and marketing. People need to be told what to buy as with Apple with great ads, or get cornered into it as with Windows pre-installed in everything.
The ecosystem of OSS is what is resisting OSS becoming a market.
Slashdot Mirror
Innovation is only a small part of how businesses grow and make money. Kodak was deep in the film photography business... everything about the industry and everything about the company in someway had a connection. These connections and channels of revenue are built, established, then reinforced with assets. This is a process that takes decades. And as long as there are sales, it all works. When the well dries however, the whole ecosystem collapses, and innovation has little to do with it. It's all about damage control, and making up for it elsewhere.
Digital is a completely different beast than film. Kodak started at square 1 with digital cameras, as did everyone else. Those who are winning in the digital photography space have little to owe to their film camera roots... apart from maybe their brand recognition. Digital cameras are computers with a lens. They require sophisticated software from firmware to computer software for the users... It's insanely more complex. And the catch? They can't sell anymore film, development and production costs are higher, and margins are slimmer.
In Kodak's case, they probably couldn't make up for it even if they became #1 in digital cameras. Their old corporate infrastructure, all their assets, and everything they knew how to do well would have had to go, and if that is what equals Kodak, then honestly nothing could have saved them.
Well, I'm mainly talking about the Japanese console gaming industry. Games will never go away, so if you're a competent dev house then there will always be work. But who is really making money and how?
Sony bet biggest on online distribution with their PSP Go which was a catastrophe. So if console games aren't being distributed online, and the storefronts are shrinking, that is a sign of major turmoil. That's really all I am saying. And if you prefer the Wall Street perspective, an industry that isn't growing is as good as dead.
Microsoft is winning right now, but it isn't really because of good titles or better games (they come out on ps3 also), but more due to the success of xbox live.
As for gaming cycles, ps = 1994, ps2 = 2000, ps3 = 2006, ps4 != 2012.
Although overall sales will always be good in some form or another, the blockbusters will take up more and more of the pie, and the titles that fail to brake even will continue to increase. The fact that most hits are sequels already proves that new innovation that leads to uncharted success is becoming rarer than ever before. And uncharted territory is where real growth is at.
There is just too much work between idea and release.
I can't end with a little sarcasm?
Facts: Been going for 25 years. Last time I went, a lot of the stores I remembered were either gone, or their game section was half the size. Didn't see new stores replacing them either. The used game stores have all had a hard time and sell more DVDs and game cards now to make ends meet. Game sections of major electronic stores like Yodobashi and Bic Camera have all shrunk. Titles released for XBOX and PS are fewer and further between with more sequels and less publishers. Bandai merged with Namco. Square merged with Enix. Tecmo merged with Koei. Publishers often mask the state of their development studios, but at lower levels it gets worse. Many development houses focus on one game for years, and if their game fails, they fail with it. SNK failed. Sega failed. Midway failed. As a recent example Team Bondi of LA Noire failed. Every time the next generation of consoles come out, huge consolidation and failure occurs. A lot of companies fail to scale up their capabilities to meet new development demands.
So now it's more like making big budget movies: huge costs and lengthy development cycles that carry fatal risks. Obviously the industry will never go away, but it definitely isn't how it used to be. ... and I'm mainly referring to console games.
Just look at Japan. The stores are either gone or half the size. Building games just sucks as a business, and like a failing movie industry, each studio loses life every time a game flops until they are either acquired or go kaputz. Bigger budgets. Fewer titles. Less players. Lack of interest. The end.
Here is the scenario. Workers do stuff secretively because they do not want their supervisors to know. Now the supervisors start to monitor those workers so that they can see when they are being naughty, except, they themselves are not being monitored, so the workers are outraged when they find out the supervisor was watching youtube on the job, which entails monitoring the workers to make sure they aren't watching youtube...
So who watches the watchers?
First, one doesn't need to monitor someone to undo secretiveness. For example, have their monitor displayed on a public wall. Them knowing that what they are doing is public will already alter their behavior. Openness makes people behave. No watchers.
Second, the idea that the workers need to be watched would apply to all workers at all levels. In other words, why stop with the workers? Or the supervisors? Or the branch managers? Or the VP or CEO? Is the one person that behaves without being monitored the one? To think that monitoring only should apply to a certain class or category of people already implies prejudice:
"I am better, ergo, don't watch me."
If members of a system or group can all watch one another, and they all have the capability to challenge anyone, then consider that system well monitored.
Dangerous = Hide it, is the idiots solution. Because if anything, information will want to get out, and to assume that this information is unique, or that it cannot be replicated, or that it is the only time anyone will come up with it is idiotic.
On the other hand, recognizing any information that has more potential for harm, is a good thing. And there are intelligent ways to go about it. The military already classifies its information and enforces boundaries to some extent. This is just an example of it already being done in some form or another.
Deciding who deserves to know is where it is tricky, but just assuming all information should be free and out there is actually not very responsible. Rather, getting the right information to the right people is what being responsible really entails.
On the personal level, we should have some control over our own information, our identity, and what harms us. We should have that right, especially if the government already has that right (and uses it against us).
I get that if someone copies a work with no revenue, they cannot be sued for lost revenue. But if copyright is owned by the copyright owner, and is their right to not allow copying, then I do not understand how someone who obviously copied something can still be innocent. They would be guilty, but not liable for damages. They should at most have to pay for the plaintiff's legal fees if being taken to court is what it took.
In the case of film and music there are huge disproportionate criminal fines in place, and you'd think it would be the same with journalism... but I guess the lobbyists weren't aggressive enough to steer the law their way!?
Right, those are all upsides of legitimate copies. In your case the upsides make you pay, not the downsides.
I mentioned fear and guilt as two possible downsides. The law and the relevant ad campaigns usually play on both. But my point was that they are kind of weak, and that yes, the upsides are where the choices are being made, of which you proved to be a perfect example.
We can definitely add peace-of-mind to the upside, but this is part of the service which the pirates provide, so in this case the pirates are failing in service... If pirates had equal or better service, only the downsides would come into play.
Pricing is part of the service. And pirates have advantage over price, but if they also have advantages over everything else, then they really have everything going for them.
The only downside is guilt of not paying and fear of getting caught. Guilt will make a lot of people with the money to pay as long as they get what they want. Fear will make cowards and the paranoids pay, but then again, no one is really scared of getting caught downloading a game.
It's advertising, and because we know better about monitors, it's clearly not for us. But think of, say, laundry detergent commercials. The latest always makes your clothes whiter and removes more stains than the "leading brand". Well, the commercial has been the same for 50 years. And so have the detergents, more or less...
All that matters is the warning at the bottom. Think of cigarettes. They kill you, but as long as they told you so.
Well, as long as you stick to compsci and seek a compsci job, then you can't really lose with an MIT degree. It's like a Harvard law degree or a UNC basketball scholarship. They will want you, until you mess it up, not the other way around.
but but but... it's the people you meet.
Exactly. Why? There is no money in the truth. The truth is often boring. But there will always be a market for skewing, spinning, damage control, damage infliction, and politics. It has never been about what is relevant to us, because nothing really is until it makes the news. The news defines its own relevance, and unfortunately it is on the terms of the buyers of the news, which is extremely detrimental to "real" reporting - which by the way is also a fairly abstract concept defined by "real reporters" which are also mythical creatures. All those big name anchors just read papers handed to them. They happily adjust to the network they work for, i.e. the guys that give them their paychecks, which is a valid reason. Brian Williams is a great guy doing a great job and is great on Late Night, but the more he is likable the more effective he is at delivering the message that he is being paid to be delivered. He is great at it.
Why would I care about Iraq if I never watch the news? No chance of it crossing my mind. And it wouldn't even be in the news if not for the war none of us had a say in.
Everything is happening without us, because the news is never about us.
The parents could just look at themselves... A *ton* of pro athletes have pro athlete dads/moms. There is a reason why a lot of brothers and sisters make it together to the top tier. It's in their DNA, and the family knows it.
And honestly, you want to look at the twitch muscle gene? How about height and build? You have to paint a picture that predicts accurately a child's build at 18. There is no one gene.
It's a simple as this: Bankers are gamblers who snort coke and do whores 7 days a week (exaggerated for effect). Wall Street is where they gamble with our lives.
Saying no bonuses is easy, but it doesn't change the fact that they are gamblers and they gamble for incentive.
Modern capitalism works like this:
1) Someone starts a company fueled by passion and innovation. Good people with good ideas at this level. Big debt and little pay.
2) Only a small number survive. But the company loses its human moral elements as it grows and becomes more successful by prioritizing business over people.
3) By the time it goes public it behaves like a psychopath and fully pits staff and customers against profit. They battle their unions, battle their costs, and try and make as much money as possible.
4) Stocks = gambling chips. Bad people moving huge sums just for better numbers.
5) Profit!
Any big corp lives and dies by their stock price, and that is their number one priority. They will sacrifice anything for it, and that has given bankers huge leverage. And it causes big corps to do very very naughty behavior. And we all suffer. Wall Street is where they gamble with our lives.
Actually, no. AC-ness has nothing to do with it holding water. Rather, stating the scientific paradigm is wholly suspect is what makes AC suspect to anyone that knows better. Unfortunately, those who are similar tend to gather, and we continue our battle. But since education is progressive, eventually what is more accurate will catch on. The problem is with those who've stopped learning. Natural causes will take care of them eventually though, ergo with every generation we know better.
Technology may alter how our brain grows a tiny bit, but our brains still have far more power over technology. Our brains create it.
One of the things he mentioned was Adobe's lack of attention to the stability of Flash on (his) mobile devices.
So what will change with their new focus on HTML5?
If they had the right focus, they'd be on iPhones right now. They're focus probably sucks.
Just sayin'.
If I go by "Joe", my identity is Joe regardless of what my "real" identity is. So before any security or policy or correctness argument, the enforcement of "real" names resulted in a "broken identity" platform more than anything else. And now, by allowing "any" identity, all they are doing is satisfying the first prerequisite for "real" identity. Identity is sustained by utility, not by legal records.
Short-sighted investors
There is another angle though. Wall Street writes its own news, and they sound alarms intentionally. They then bank on the recovery to every involuntary reaction by the market. Just another way the real players cheat to make big money. Most day traders and independent financial advisers and everyone that takes cable news seriously are all being played. You have to be in the club to make money. They may be watching the same news, but I guarantee they hear it differently.
And they don't care who knows about any of this either, because all anyone can do is save yourself anyway, and the victim pool only keeps growing and growing.
The triple A ratings on mortgage backed derivatives was no accident. They rode the bubble, they rode the burst, and they got bailed out, aka financial innovation in the USA.
Software can emulate anything. A good example may be video games. Software can create gravity and realistic 3D environments and everything else, but that isn't to say anything that it creates is itself "software". AI is the same.
There is no real gravity in the computer, and the computer doesn't create real gravity.
There is no real intelligence in the computer, and the computer doesn't create real intelligence.
Computer running software may be a good analogy to the brain running whatever it runs. But it is only an analogy.
Some think that artificial intelligence seeks to emulate the real intelligence of humans. But most of it is just software, and has little to do with real intelligence.
There are certain problems that AI can solve, but those solutions are not "intelligent" but rather are merely "formulas" programmed by intelligent people (computer scientists).
We get excited when these formulas emulate what a real person might do, and when we can hide the underlying machine, but that is not to say we know how people think or even how we are implemented. We are just getting better at programming.
There are some great advancements in cognitive science, and the more we discover about how the brain works, the less it looks like it could be run by any "code". No intel inside. The brain is an organ that grows and dies, and takes its memories with it. If anything, it programs itself.
That is not to say there haven't been advancements in AI. It too is incredibly useful.
A good place to start: ... and wikipedia of course...
http://www.ted.com/search?q=brain
http://www.ted.com/search?q=artificial+intelligence
Ya, and they certainly got a lot of help to recreate Shakespeare... like human help.
These monkeys were no ordinary monkeys either. First and foremost, they BEHAVE.
It's like he didn't even understand the expression as GP said, yet went out to demonstrate his misunderstanding literally. ... and that is what makes this story interesting :)
OSS is a big success, and it produces great product. But the resistance is not in it's failures, but rather, in everything it lacks.
Since when was Stallman selling anything? Evangelists have little to do with marketing. Stallman is selling an idea if anything, and that idea sold, ergo the huge success of OSS. That success is not in the market, but in mind share and in utility. That was the goal I presume. And it has been a huge success.
OSS software does not suck. Or else Red Hat wouldn't have a business. But they sell service, and they cater to a market. They understand that market, and know how to sell to it, and they have the people hired full time who go out selling to that market. They have customer support (they sell it actually), and they know their customer.
Of course we love what we make even if it sucks, but interesting choice of words. "Market" refers to people buying stuff, but OSS isn't necessarily for sale. Nor do people advertise or "sell" as do those who cater towards "markets". Red Hat sells service, not OSS.
So, "resist" is not the reason why OSS isn't selling. The problem is more about the lack of sales and marketing. People need to be told what to buy as with Apple with great ads, or get cornered into it as with Windows pre-installed in everything.
The ecosystem of OSS is what is resisting OSS becoming a market.