Open Source Isn't A Business Model... Just Like Free Isn't A Business Model
from the but-both-are-important-parts-of-a-business-model dept
Marshall Kirkpatrick had an interesting post at ReadWriteWeb last week declaring that "pure open source is no longer a viable business model." The post (and the title) are based on some research from The451 Group (which does very good research, I should mention). While the actual report costs quite a bit of money, the firm did put up a blog post discussing the research, and it's not as inflammatory as the title might have made it out to be.The simple fact is that "open source" has never been a business model -- in the same way that free, by itself, has never been a business model. They both can be a very important part of a business model, but anyone who thought that "open source" was a business model probably also believed that "give it away and pray" was a business model. The research report simply highlights that point, effectively pointing out that, while some companies may have incorrectly thought it was a business model, "open source" by itself has never been a business model. Those that bet on "open source as a business model" rather than figuring out how open source works in a business model all realized they needed to change strategies down the road.
Unfortunately, the problem is that many will simply read the bottom line of these reports, rather than the details, and think they mean that open source is a failure as a part of a business model. And that would be a huge mistake. Ignoring the opportunities that are opened up for other business models by open source is just as silly as ignoring how "free" can be a part of almost any business model today. Brushing them aside as not worth pursuing is a strategy that will almost certainly come back to haunt those who underestimate the importance of both concepts.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, economics, open source, software
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
free has never been the business model
I remember something interesting from the tech bubble at the turn of the century (it still sounds weird that our generation has a turn of the century). You could scan the press releases for the companies that were collaborative, open source, web enabled, fully integrated solutions, blah blah, and know that there would be cheap office furniture available in about six months from their liquidation auction. So many places were just buzzword factories that thought they would be raking it in just by "being" open source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like "Charge money" isn't a bsiness model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many times can you say it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the same way it could work with music/movies/books. You give away the digital good and make money from the fanbase on the concert/tour, t-shirt, liner notes, art, artist availability, endorsement, signed copies, etc, etc. The list goes on. That is one reason why Mike has Techdirt. Not only is it an interest that he has - discussing tech - but it also establishes him as an expert in the subject of economics of technology. Giving away something often makes more money than selling something.
OpenSource isn't "the" business model. It contributes to the overall set of products - or serves as bait for other services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The European view...
His point was that end users like him used open source to have a diversity of support options. As soon as the software was locked up by one company, it was, to him, no longer open source even if there was an open source license and development model attached to it.
Funny enough, the 451 Group did a report a couple of years ago about the top 10 "open source business models"... 7 of those were companies we had worked with ;-) We've always been very careful to separate open source as a strategy from any particular business model.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course open source isn't a business model
Furthermore, using the term F(L)OSS when talking about methods of software creation or business models is incorrect (I know the article didn't mention it but already some comments are using it). Free Software has nothing to do with business models or even development models. It only references software that's licensing and distribution meet a certain ethical ideal. Calling Free Software part of a business model makes about as much sense as calling free speech or the freedom to not incriminate one's self parts of business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course open source isn't a business model
No its not. A development model is a methodology for product creation, for example Agile or the Waterfall methodology.
Open Source is model for determining infrastructure, customer relationship, finance and distribution channels. Therefore its a business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the value of Open Source has to do with a sense of community were the product in question is continually updated and "competing products" push and help each other in bettering the end product.
Open Source = better end user satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that was suppose to be im sure IT CAN be none not it cant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
open source is a licensing model
it's neither a development or a business model:
a business model is a model/plan for how to run a business/make a profit off of a given good/service
a software development model is a model/plan for how to design and implement a given piece of software, and for sundry activities (example: inter-team communication; expectations on the date of delivery; clarification of requirements)
Open Source is a licensing model: it refers to a set of licenses with common or similar terms, the main thrust of wh/ is that the licensee has unrestricted access to look @ and modify the source code, and redistribute it freely so long as the original terms of the license are observed (said terms mostly being that redistributed copies/modifications also be under the same license terms/ proper attribution given)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]