- Image via Wikipedia
Dan Farber started the debate by saying
Economics don’t favor pure open source. The future is hybrids–cars, software, people, pets. It’s better for the planet…
Then J.P. Rangaswami countered Dan’s argument by claiming that open source is a viable option under gift economics than scarcity based economics
So for me there is a golden thread that links opensource with abundance with delayed gratification with collaboration and teamwork all the way to co-creation of value with the customer. All economically sound, just not scarcity-economy sound.
James McGovern jumped into the argument saying
Too much of the discussion around open source has been centered around software vendors and paid support models. The assumption is that enterprises won’t go it alone in terms of using software without someone providing a holding hand. The funny thing is that many enterprises are doing just that. Ask yourself how many enterprises use Eclipse? Then ask yourself how many enterprises pay for support for Eclipse? Once an enterprise starts getting a taste of what it means to support themselves then the economic model changes significantly towards something more positive. The real question if folks can understand positive may not come from the perspective of a software vendor but it can benefit large enterprises in an economically sound way.
To which James Robertson countered saying
It’s easy to be happy with free software that is being continually improved; the harder question is what companies would do if IBM decided that Eclipse wasn’t worth whatever it is they spend on it. Right now, Eclipse is a loss leader for IBM’s paid software; as with any loss leader, if IBM decides that it’s not pulling people over to the paid side, the seeming altruism will come to an end.
I do not agree with James Robertson. First, enterprises will use a product like Eclipse irrespective of whether it is backed by IBM or not. Second, the worst case scenario, which he is highlighting in his post, could happen in proprietary software too. What is the factor, unique in the case of proprietary model, that could prevent any software from going out of marketplace? One bad move by the proprietary software company, or one smart move by their competitors, could send the software (and the company) out of the map in no time. At least, in the case of open source software like Eclipse, there is a chance that some group might take over the project and continue with the development. The proprietary software lacks such a backup.
Apart from this view of mine on this debate, I think all the bloggers in this debate seems to be missing a very important point. I have an entirely different perspective on the open source software. I don’t see it an an anti-proprietary model. Open source software is not a competitor to proprietary software. I have an altogether different philosophical viewpoint to it. I would like to see it in the way I see science than as an economic model. If we take a look at the science, Newton and Einstein didn’t worry about patenting their work and making money out of it. They developed their concepts out of curiosity to understand nature. Then came further developments in Physics, then Chemistry, then Biology and so on. These scientific works laid the foundation on which companies built products ranging from airplanes, drugs, rockets, etc. Some of the companies succeeded and many failed. Nobody said science is not a viable option. Science continues to grow irrespective of whether the companies, built on top of them, succeed or not. This continuous growth helped others companies step in and try their chance to succeed. Science is serving as a platform on which these business models play the game in the playground called “marketplace”. Science acts as a great leveler for these economic forces. Science ensures that no single person/company gets the monopoly over people’s life. Similar to science, open source was born out of curiosity of the human beings to understand the software. It developed into a huge movement to satisfy the inner urges of the “open source scientists”. Open source movement, like science, acts as a platform on which various business models play the game (including the Web 2.0 models). Some of the models will succeed and many will fail. But open source will continue to thrive in the future and help other players to play the game on another day. Like science, open source acts as a great leveler for these economic forces and ensures that no single person/company holds monopoly over the people’s lives. Open Source will thrive as a platform even if some of the business models on it fails.
My problem with Dan Farber and others is that they try to view open source as a business model. I strongly disagree with this viewpoint. I see open source as a platform on which various business models can dance around.
About Krish
I agree with the analogy to science, and it is computer science. Open Source is a development model, and a distribution model, not a business model. RedHat and CentOS don’t have anything in common in terms of business models, although they have an awful lot of code in common. Companies are responsible for their own unique business model, and RMS certainly didn’t pen the GPL to create a great new way for people to start companies. The question as to possibility of making money is a forgone conclusion, lots and lots of companies are making money from Open Source software, so it can happen. Is there room for your product in this space, that’s a question that requires a lot of research, and a business answer. You can’t think that that the GPL is a shield that allows programmers with no business skills to invade the software market unasailed by legal and business concerns. While that’s a ridiculous premise, that seems to be the recurring question, can the little guy GPL his hobby project and get rich? It entirely depends on the little guy in question and the project. Economically viable? How much money does RedHat have in the bank, did anyone think Novell was viable previous to their forray into the Open Source?
I agree with you Patric. It is exactly my point. Open Source is not a business model but a development platform.
I agree with you Patric. It is exactly my point. Open Source is not a business model but a development platform.
I think the platform and philosophy you refer to might be more related to the free software movement than the open source movement.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
But either way, I think I agree with you. I’ve just found the philosophy better expressed by the free software movement than by the open source movement, in my admittedly limited experience.
I think the platform and philosophy you refer to might be more related to the free software movement than the open source movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f... But either way, I think I agree with you. I’ve just found the philosophy better expressed by the free software movement than by the open source movement, in my admittedly limited experience.
Definitely, the philosophy is well expressed by free software movement. No doubt about it. Even the proponents of open source didn’t say it is a business model. They only said that we can build various business models on top of it. Thatz the point I am trying to highlight here. Thanks for your comment.
Definitely, the philosophy is well expressed by free software movement. No doubt about it. Even the proponents of open source didn’t say it is a business model. They only said that we can build various business models on top of it. Thatz the point I am trying to highlight here. Thanks for your comment.
Open source has another feature that not all science research and development environments share – distributed development. Beyond software the distributed model can and does work in design in automotive and aircraft but in biological sciences, it is a bit hard to replicate, not least because a hardware kit and a licensed piece of software cost enormously less than setting up a wet lab does, not to mention the conditions (temp, humidity etc) that need to be maintained for results to be replicable…
This would somewhat hamper the business models that can be developed using this development model. Can drugs be developed more cheaply? Can genome studies be done more cheaply or swiftly? It depends on how the tasks can be split up, their path dependencies etc.
What do you think?
Open source has another feature that not all science research and development environments share – distributed development. Beyond software the distributed model can and does work in design in automotive and aircraft but in biological sciences, it is a bit hard to replicate, not least because a hardware kit and a licensed piece of software cost enormously less than setting up a wet lab does, not to mention the conditions (temp, humidity etc) that need to be maintained for results to be replicable… This would somewhat hamper the business models that can be developed using this development model. Can drugs be developed more cheaply? Can genome studies be done more cheaply or swiftly? It depends on how the tasks can be split up, their path dependencies etc. What do you think?
There are a lot of subtleties in the “Open Source” question, generally the reporting media gets about two of them, that something called “source code” is available, making it possible to modify a program, and that you can download the software for no cost from the internet. Through the glass of traditional software marketing this is suicide, and that seems to be all the further that most reporting outlets can look into the question. Compilers are not meant to be copyright protection schemes, and they don’t perform that function all that well. No one is reading through and complying to the ridiculous EULAs that accompany software. All software is available on the internet for a no cost download, and it isn’t any more illegal than installing software you’ve purchased on your laptop and desktop. As far as workable software business models, everyone in the industry is struggling to find recurring, sustainable revenue stream that will fund infrastructure and development, especially traditional software companies. Let’s agree that various open-source companies have done quite well with coming up with and maintaining revenue streams, others have struggled and still others have failed, no differently than their closed-source counterparts. Parting thought: Novell has struggled about the same as a closed-source company, an open-source company and various attempts to hybridize the two.
Shefaly, I think it is quite possible. Academia has been quite successful in the use of distributed model. Great particle physics and astrophysics projects (which are much more expensive than drug design) have been successfully carried out using a distributed model and sharing of data. It is the companies insistence of patents that is messing up with the possibility for this process. If every scientist from before Newton and Galileo had thought of patenting their discoveries and inventions, science wouldn’t have progressed this much and these companies wouldn’t have had a chance to profit from science. If companies can compromise a bit on their huge profits, we can have great business models based on open source development model. Business need not always follow a path of monopoly. We can better leverage the business community for the overall development of human society if they change their outlook and adapt to open source models. In fact, as Patric pointed out in the previous comment, they can make profits even with the open source approach.
Krish: My inquiry and curiosity is more about technical feasibility in these domains, not just the economic feasibility/ possibility.
Unlike, say, astrophysics, in biological sciences, it is not just data that is shared. Change of lab conditions and slight differences in reagents etc can yield totally different results.
Without something being technically feasible, economic feasibility is an academic discussion, no?
I don’t see this technical limitation in this regard. It is easy to simulate the necessary conditions in the current day scenario. With all the advances we have, it is not a problem at all. In fact, I don’t see any technological limitations. I only see economic limitations here. If you have any specific scenario, which you think as a limiting factor, feel free to add. Any knowledge is useful in shaping our ideas. I will also ping my friend, who is a Ph.D. in biological sciences and who is now in the marketing side in a bioinformatics company. Let us see what he thinks about this issue.
Thanks Deepak. Shefaly, feel free to share your opinions. You can also check out Deepak’s blog at http://www.mndoci.com. He writes about Bioinformatics stuff, in case you are interested in that area.