Stanford Teaching MBAs How To Fight Open Source 430
mjasay writes "As if the proprietary software world needed any help, two business professors from Harvard and Stanford have combined to publish 'Divide and Conquer: Competing with Free Technology Under Network Effects,' a research paper dedicated to helping business executives fight the onslaught of open source software. The professors advise 'the commercial vendor ... to bring its product to market first, to judiciously improve its product features, to keep its product "closed" so the open source product cannot tap into the network already built by the commercial product, and to segment the market so it can take advantage of a divide-and-conquer strategy.' The professors also suggest that 'embrace and extend' is a great model for when the open source product gets to market first. Glad to see that $48,921 that Stanford MBAs pay being put to good use. Having said that, such research is perhaps a great, market-driven indication that open source is having a serious effect on proprietary technology vendors."
Reminds me of Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of Microsoft's strategy. Except for the "judicious improvement," and it doesn't seem like it will work for them in the long term anyway.
confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
The professors advise 'the commercial vendor
So many obviously smart people confuse proprietary with commercial. The two are orthogonal. Back in the 90s this might have been academic, but there are now many commercial open source companies. Get with the program.
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowing the enemy's potential avenues of attack is a wonderful asset. It makes counter-attacking and defending much easier.
Don't they realize that... (Score:1, Insightful)
... to a certain extent, anything that's not free (free as in beer) and has utility will become free to certain users?
Enlightenment [wikipedia.org]
Of course, then the commercial vendors will turn to DRM. Then the freely obtained product will become superior to the one obtained by buying it from the vendor. With the vendors focused on the loss of sales, FOSS will continue to innovate.
Good luck, even with that "embrace, extend, extinguish" in effect.
Competition is good (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd actually be disappointed if information like this weren't being taught in Silicon Valley!
resistence is futile (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm happy to see that the suggested strategies are ones which carry significant drawbacks. Segmenting markets and keeping everything closed does indeed give you control, but it also slows the very network growth that makes products become successful. And it frequently leads to user frustration (because of, for example, DRM, or the lack of support groups, or the inability to find or construct fixes/hacks as needed).
This is good news in the sense that any strategy to fight open-source means that you emphasize the gap between open-source and closed-source products: the open-source product's advantage is the openness, the community, the ease of distribution, the non-naginess, the network effects, the hackability... and the more closed the closed-source products try to be, the more these items become product differentiators, which the open-source product can point to as big advantages.
So, I do hope closed-source projects go ahead and implement those user-hostile strategies. It will only serve to make open-source products look that much better by comparison. As other posters have pointed out, there is no fundamental divide between "open-source" and "commercial". So I would think the better strategy for MBAs thinking about open-source is "if you can't beat 'em--join 'em". Or in other words, why get involved in closed-source business ventures when an open-sourced equivalent inherently leverages network effects?
Re:I'm curious (Score:5, Insightful)
The 90s called, they want their argument back.
Many programmers are paid to work on free software these days.
In fact, the problem isn't finding jobs, the problem is finding programmers.
Re:I'm curious (Score:1, Insightful)
Wouldn't there cease to be many programming jobs where there once were?
No, why would there be?
Wouldn't that lead to lower paying programming jobs in turn leading to less cs graduates and lower quality software?
No, why would it?
Got any other FUD you'd like answered?
Re:Competition is good (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a research paper from February (Score:5, Insightful)
A recent paper on this topic by Mendelson, coauthored with Deishin Lee, PhD â(TM)04, now a faculty member at Harvard Business School, is not a how-to manual for hard-pressed executives. Rather the researchers have built a theoretical model explaining the choices open to commercial firms. âoeAlthough open source is the lead example of our work, the principles certainly apply to other businesses, including, for example, the media business,â says Mendelson.
Heaven forbid that somebody actually study how businesses choose between free and proprietary software! That's of no good whatsoever! And of course free-as-in-speech definitely does not extend to a university allowing its academics to publish material which might be bad for open source. Clearly Stanford should've had these two men killed and fed to rabid, pestulent chipmunks, rather than allow this affront to reach the press.
Re:I'm curious (Score:4, Insightful)
In the long term, what happens if all software ends up being free?
In the present, all software is free http://www.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com] http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]
Wouldn't there cease to be many programming jobs where there once were?
No... Most software would still be developed in-house. What will cease is companies who can make a bloated program that is badly written and gain millions for it.
Wouldn't that lead to lower paying programming jobs in turn leading to less cs graduates and lower quality software?
No. It would only serve to increase the quality of code as the fact that it compiles does not mean that it is good code. Open source software has no secrets, the quality would go up because anyone could fix it.
I know some companies do alright supporting products they've written and give away freely, but I can't see that extending to applications beyond some mission critical business system type things.
Ever heard of the Geek Squad? They make a fortune supporting products that they never even written and most are trivial applications (Windows, iTunes, etc)
I've long wondered things such as this. OSS sounds great at a glance, but I really have a poor concept of where it will go in the long run. I like writing software, but I also like being able to pay my bills.
Where do you work now? Chances are, that company will still develop applications in house, not to mention that you would be in charge of changing various OSS programs to better fit the needs of the company.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
There's hope for a balance. I see more *buntu and Macs used by CS students. In the great scheme of things, MBAs will learn that there are multiple possible models for success in development organizations.
Proprietary software makes money. Don't confuse making money with success, however. Like other methods of making money, proprietary software is transient in nature, just as open software is.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Summ. author has an open source block on shoulder (Score:5, Insightful)
The slashdot summary author (mjasay) appears to see the world through a lens which makes the developers of open source software victims of some nasty MBA conspiracy.
The academics who wrote the underlying article go out of their way to say that their writings are not a 'how to' manual for MBAs, and that open source software is only one example.
The article is simply a recent take on 'How to compete with free,' an important MBA marketing topic for decades. 'How to compete with free' can be considered a subset of how to compete in general, and the gist of any marketing solution to 'how to compete' will be based on building value in the product.
One method to build value is to increase switching cost through lock-in. Even free / advertising supported services do this: my.yahoo, iTunes, gmail, hotmail and countless others.
If you read the underlying academic article, you just might notice that most of the tools presented now are analogous to the tools presented at Sanford in the early nineties to the MBAs who eventually went on to Coke and Pepsi to fight the scourge of FOSW (Free Open Source Water).
Open source water survived just fine. As long as open source software continues to offer value, it will continue to thrive.
Marketing is marketing. MBA courses are MBA courses. Same shit, different year.
Query (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot so biased towards open source?
Re:confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
The author also doesn't understand (or refuses to acknowledge) the different definitions of "free," and as such, misses some of the major points of why more and more people are using FOSS.
Re:confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm. My MBA Program talks rather fondly of Open Source Software, for the most part. They just make you analysis the benefits in a business perspective, and try to decide when an Open Source product is worth it, or getting a closed source app may be a better overall value. About 1/3 of the MBA class are Computer Science or Engineering Majors for their Undergrad and know about Linux and open source and use them. There are also differernt classes of MBA as well.
While the degree is the same.
You have Ivy League Full Time MBA. These tend to make the biggest Jerks of bosses. These Kids think they are special and entitled and tend to treat people under them like dirt while they bring the company to the ground.
Next it is the Ivy League Part TIme MBA. These guys often have real business experience and know what it feels to be the little guy. But being from such a well known school they still often get high end jobs much quicker then their experience shows and still kill the company.
Full Time normal college MBA. Yea they are Jerks too. However companies wont put them in top positions to kill the company, until the get the real experience.
Finnaly the Part Time Normal College MBA. These guys are not in it to be the CEO just a manager. Tend to be less of jerks and start as low managers and work they way up. Tend to be the guys you can deal with.
Re:Competition is good (Score:3, Insightful)
I call it American-style competition. Instead of making a better product or giving the customer what they want, they work to crush the competition and give the customer no choice but to buy their product. The purpose of competition in markets is to give the customers what they want at the best possible price.. as soon as your goals vary from that you're no longer a part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
because open source companies don't want to make money? if so somebody better tell MySQL AB and Trolltech. they're doing a horrible job of it.
Re:Reminds me of Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Make money and make a reputation through making and marketing GOOD STABLE WORKING software. Don't try to do it by making a big bag of shit and blocking anyone trying to compete.
Oh, hang on, yes, now I see the potential problem for the business types...
Re:Competition is good (Score:4, Insightful)
But realize that to the huge majority of the world, and certainly to the majority of business executives, there is no moral stigma attached to proprietary/closed software. Just as the GPL exists to enforce the wishes of the copyright holder on all downstream consumers, there is nothing morally wrong with a company offering its products for sale on its own terms - specifically with no rights to the source.
Given two morally equivalent choices, won't business people always opt for the one with the greater return on investment?
Proprietary software has paid my mortgage for many years. I am skeptical that open source would generate the same standard of living for me.
Re:Not following their own advice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clever post, but check out this subtle fact: the authors are absolutely practicing what they preached in that very article:
market segmentation: you get the watered down summary for free, but have to pay for a journal subscription to get the actual article
market seeding: give this version away for free (and I suspect that they'll even send a .pdf of their related working papers) in hopes of capturing customers for the more expensive version (a.k.a. attending their b-schools, or hiring them on as consultants).
In reality though, academic theorists are absolutely the most open source colleagues I've ever had. As long as you adequately cite them, you'll be their bestest friend if you embrace and extend their material. When tenure and promotion decisions are to be made, b-school deans might not be so savvy as to know how good your publications are, but they can easily see how often you work has been cited. Don Jacobs, former dean of Kellogg, said it best, "Maybe we can't read, but we can definitely count."
Re:I'm curious (Score:5, Insightful)
it is my understanding that most of these paid OSS jobs are funded by proprietary software.
That is what you understand wrong.
You imagine people will keep working on software out of altruistic desire forever? Many people I know are in this profession solely for the high salaries. Once OSS peanut-salary is the norm, they will dump this profession like a cheap rental suit.
I dunno where you get your information from, but again, you're completely wrong here. There's no difference between the salaries of programmers who work on free software and the people who work on proprietary software.
I'm just figuring you're a troll now.
Re:Query (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot so biased towards open source?
Becase many nerds have a 'hacker' mentality, where if they purchased a physical device they own it and can do anything they want with it, DRM, DMCA, vendor-lock-in and other such evils are viewed as evil because they inhibit hacking.
Re:resistence is futile (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
What the heck is Google doing in that list. They pretty much exclusively make money from AdSense and their search algorithms. Care to point me to where I can download the source for that? Nope, you don't even get to see the object code. You have to hand over your data to them to process in their super-closed system.
Re:natural order (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing I don't like about that quote is that it only predicts the sequence under the assumption that you'll win.
First they ignore you, and many simply remain ignored.
If not they laugh at you, and many are still ridiculed.
If not they fight you, and many are fighting or losing.
If not, then and only then will you win.
Honestly it's not much of a progress meter. What I think is the real progress meter is that open source software is becoming more and more usable and it's not something you can "undo". You can't drive it bankrupt, you can't buy it up, you can fight the distros and the outer layers but you can't stop the underlying OSS development. Even though it feels glacier-slow at times I've seen how far it's come in the last ten years - ten more years like those and it'll be slowly rolling in almost anywhere. No huge splashes, no revolutionary releases, no "year of the Linux desktop" just slowly pushing the others out.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Competition is good (Score:2, Insightful)
"Proprietary software is going downhill. Just about every major software vendor that remains proprietary is losing marketshare and money." Care to cite some examples? Last I checked, proprietary OS's dominate the desktop market. No one I know uses open source CAD tools for any project of significance. Video games are, of course, closed source. Certainly, there are markets where open source is dominant, or at least competitive, but there are plenty of markets where it hasn't even made a dent.
Those markets are profitable for closed source companies, and it is in the best interest of employees and shareholders of those companies to keep it that way. So how is it "bad teaching" to instruct future managers on how to compete? Would it be better to teach them to roll over?
But let's be honest. When you say, "Open source is the future, proprietary software is dying," it is not because that's the way it is. It's because that's the way you want it to be.
Re:Awesome... (Score:1, Insightful)
How does slashdot have such a lack of understanding of open source? As if it is something that mystically appears of its own accord? If that were the case, there would be no need and no applicants for Google's Summer of Code, because all the lovely open source code they could ever possibly need would already be gushing out from the teeming numbers of talented programmers who have too much leisure time.
Why do early stage ventures stay closed source, shut away from all this gushing benefit? Here's the reality check. They are too small to get any benefits from open sourcing their code, and small enough that it has maximum danger to do so. If you are an early venture with only pilot customers, there is no cost saving in open sourcing your code: there is no "community" to speak of to help maintain the code yet. And once you've spent large amounts of effort perfecting the techniques and making the technology actually work, Joe Competitor can come in and instantly be a more profitable competitor because he only has to pay a sales and support team, not pay the blasted developers.
Now, if you are a Venture Capitalist, you are well aware of this and are very cagey about handing out large sums of cash to people who promise to spend it but then hand the technical advantage right over to their competitors, giftwrapped with a bow on top.
The upshot of this is that open-source is a fabulous way to commoditize, but not a very good way to innovate. Apache, Linux, Firefox, Trac, etc are all wonderfully successful open source projects -- and all commoditizing well-established, well-known, and technically well-understood product segments. Trying to come up with a genuinely new product through open source means, however, is much much harder than starting closed and opening it once it is successful.
Re:Reminds me of Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Doctors: Please help your patients with their ailments.
Taxi-Drivers: Please take your fare to where they would like to go without taking too many detours.
Software Developers: Please make good software.
Hey! I'm a professor [youtube.com]!
Re:resistence is futile (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact that Linux doesn't 'sell' (primarily) might have something to do with it also.
Re:Competition is good (Score:3, Insightful)
.
I wonder.
Microsoft seems to be weathering the financial storms rather well - and there are others which come to mind.
With investors fleeing from the corporate bond market, this seems an odd time for Microsoft to be borrowing money, but the software maker is planning to do just that, taking advantage of its status as one of the tech sector's bluest blue chips.
The Microsoft announcement had some interesting elements, including the news that it would seek to raise funds in the debt market. The company does not currently have any bonds outstanding.
Crowell, Weedon analyst James D. Ragan said that although Microsoft has plenty of cash and doesn't need to tap the debt markets, it may be able to borrow at lower rates than the interest it earns. Also, Ragan said, Microsoft may be ensuring the debt authority is in place for the future but may not plan on using it immediately. "It will be interesting to see how much of the debt they really use."
On Monday, rating agencies Standard & Poor's and Moody's put triple-A gradings on Microsoft's credit. That top-level rating means that Microsoft can borrow money at lower interest rates than most other companies. "The company's strong credit quality coupled with investors' current appetite for high-quality paper provides a unique opportunity for the company to establish its first-ever commercial paper program and enhance its capital structure," said George Zinn, treasurer of Microsoft. Microsoft Shows Its Financial Muscle [forbes.com]
Re:I'm curious (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize, of course, that long before FOSS was big, over 80% of software written was never sold. It was developed for internal consumption. That's a huge piece of the pie.
As for software sold to others, have you ever heard of "support contracts"? That's where folks like RedHat make their money. Even Microsoft makes money on support. They make a lot of money off of certifying people to work on their software too.
And then there's sponsored development. This is where the two paragraphs above intersect. Suppose Company X really like some package Y, but it's missing some feature it really needs. It can code it itself (the old internal development model) and spend the money internally, or it can hire someone outside to implement the feature. Not an ounce of altruism there. The FOSS license ensures that the feature is able to become part of the overall product. Company X derives direct benefit, and likely has strong influence over the shape it takes.
IBM doesn't send zillions of patches to Linus out of altruism. They send patches because they want Linux to behave better and have the features they want so they can ship more servers. Freescale doesn't send patches to Linus out of altruism. They do it because they want Linux to run well on their embedded chips so that more people will buy them. And so on.
You've got this vision that this is all a big charity. No, it's enlightened self interest.
Re:confusion (Score:1, Insightful)
Many of you with MBAs know you learn jack squat, even (especially?) the ones from the top schools - what you get is a door pass and network (and yeah, I did get a degree from a top buz school). Let me remind you that Bush's got MBA from Harvard.
Actaually, there is one degree more pointless - PhD in Business. Gawk. Music theory PhDs laugh at those clowns.
If you want a real management training, you should shoot for GE's management program.
Go ahead, mod away.
Re:Competition is good (Score:1, Insightful)
.... Teaching people how to "combat" open source software is like teaching people how to "combat" C and claim that COBOL is the language of the future. Its not going to work....
With all the existing COBOL code running today I suspect my grandchildren will still see it in operation.
The language is not fun to me but it is functional enough to date that serious development still goes on with it.
You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
In the spirit of http://xkcd.com/463/ [xkcd.com], commercial software that competes like this will slowly lose the battle.
Instead of fighting for the same turf as open source, they should be finding markets that aren't served by open source. Niche markets and new markets are great places for commercial vendors. Generic applications used by everyone that are constantly reinventing the same wheel will be open sourced and the market will shift.
Don't try to make a better web browser or office application. Instead, focus on the pace maker control system or credit card fraud detection system. Focus on things that are worth money to a narrow market and don't have a lot of competition from open source because their isn't demand for bored developers to build a cheaper mouse trap.
Stop doing it wrong.
Re:Competition is good (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot Ubuntu.
You also forgot: 2X, 64 Studio, Absolute, AbulÉdu, ADIOS, Alinex, AliXe, ALT, Ankur Bangla, AnNyung, Arch, ArcheOS, Archie, Ark, ArtistX, AsianLinux, Asianux, ASPLinux, Astaro, Aurora, AUSTRUMI, B2D, BackTrack, Bayanihan, BeaFanatIX, BeleniX, Berry, Big Linux, BinToo, BioBrew, blackPanther, BLAG, Bluewhite64, BOSS, BU Linux, Burapha, Caixa Mágica, cAos, Càtix, CCux, CDlinux, Censornet, CentOS, ClarkConnect, Clonezilla, Clusterix, clusterKNOPPIX, College, Comfusion, Condorux, Coyote, CRUX, Damn Small, DANIX, DARKSTAR, Debian, Deep-Water, DeLi, Devil, Dizinha, DNALinux, Draco, Dreamlinux, dyne:bolic, Dzongkha, eAR OS, easys, eduKnoppix, EduLinux, Ehad, Ekaaty, eLearnix, Elive, elpicx, ELX, Endian, EnGarde, Epidemic, ERPOSS, Euronode, Everest, Evinux, EzPlanet One, Famelix, FaunOS, Fedora, Fermi, Finnix, Fluxbuntu, Foresight, Freedows, Freeduc, FreeNAS, FreeSBIE, Freespire, Frenzy, Frugalware, FTOSX, GeeXboX, Gelecek, Gentoo, GentooTH, Gentoox, GEOLivre, Gibraltar, gNewSense, GNIX, gnuLinEx, GNUstep, GoblinX, GoboLinux, gOS, GParted, Grafpup, Granular, Greenie, grml, Guadalinex, Hacao, Helix, Hiweed, Honeywall, How-Tux, IDMS, Impi, IndLinux, Inquisitor, INSERT, Insigne, IPCop, JackLab, JoLinux, Julex, K12LTSP, Kaella, Kalango, KANOTIX, Karamad, Karoshi, KateOS, K-DEMar, Kiwi, Knoppel, Knopperdisk, KNOPPIX, KnoppMyth, KnoSciences, Komodo, Kubuntu, Kurumin, Kwort, L.A.S., LFS, LG3D, Linguas OS, LinnexOS, Linpus, LinuxConsole, Linux-EduCD, linuX-gamers, Linux+ Live, LinuxTLE, Linux XP, Litrix, LiveCD Router, LiVux, LliureX, Loco, Lunar, Magic, MAX, Mayix, Media Lab, MEPIS, MilaX, Mint, Miracle, MirOS, MoLinux, Momonga, Muriqui, Murix, Musix, Mutagenix, Myah OS, myLinux, Myrinix, Mythbuntu, MythDora, Nature's, NeoShine, NepaLinux, NetSecL, Nexenta, Niigata, NimbleX, Nitix, Nonux, Novell SLE, NST, nUbuntu, NuxOne, Olive, OLPC, Omoikane, O-Net, Openfiler, OpenGEU, OpenLab, OpenLX, openmamba, OpenNA, openSUSE, Openwall, Ophcrack, Oracle, PAIPIX, paldo, PapugLinux, Pardus, Parsix, Parted Magic, PCLinuxOS, PC/OS, PelicanHPC, Penguin Sleuth, Pentoo, pfSense, Phayoune, Pie Box, Pilot, Pingo, Pingwinek, Pioneer, Plamo, PLD, Poseidon, pQui, Protech, PUD, Puppy, QiLinux, RAYS, Red Flag, redWall, Resulinux, RIPLinuX, ROCK, Rocks Cluster, RoFreeSBIE, ROSLIMS, rPath, RUNT, Sabayon, SAM, SaxenOS, SchilliX, Scientific, Securepoint, Shift, sidux, Skolelinux, Slackintosh, Slackware, Slamd64, SLAMPP, Slax, SliTaz, SME Server, SmoothWall, SoL, Sorcerer, Source Mage, StartCom, STD, StressLinux, STUX, SuliX, SuperGamer, Swecha, Syllable, Symphony OS, SystemRescue, T2, TA-Linux, TEENpup, TFM, Thinstation, Thisk, Tilix, TinyMe, tinysofa, Topologilinux, Trinity, Trisquel, trixbox, Truva, TumiX, TupiServer, Tuquito, Turbolinux, Ubuntu CE, Ubuntulite, UbuntuME, Ubuntu Studio, UHU-Linux, Ulteo, Ultima, Ultimate, Untangle, Userful, Ututo, Vector, Vine, Vixta.org, VMKnoppix, Voltalinux, Vyatta, Webconverger, White Box, Wolvix, Xandros, X/OS, Xubuntu, Yellow Dog, YES, Yoper, and Zenwalk.
All of which are mentioned at Distrowatch. I'm possibly including a couple projects that aren't actually Linux in there, but if there's 20-30 such items in that list, that's still 300 Linux distros. That's not competition; that's just a couple hundred collections of guys who decided to make their own distro cause they didn't like some quirk or another of how other distros are set up. That's just fragmentation with no benefit to the consumer, just a sea of incompatible layouts, setups, and package management formats.
Choice is great. But having a couple great, consistent, stable choices is better than having several hundred ones ranging from excellent to shitty. Variety for its own sake is pointless, from a practical standpoint at least.
Re:Reminds me of Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
You are of course wrong in the business sense:
Doctors: Keep your patients sick but convincing that they are improving if they just keep coming to them.
Taxi-Drivers: Take the longest route possible, always.
Software Developers: Lock in your customers in every conceivable way.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever you pay more than the distribution cost for a piece of software, it is overpriced. Zeros and ones does not cost anything to produce, more than the duplication and transfer cost.
Programmers don't need to eat?
Falcon
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll deliver all the zeros and ones you could ever want, but if you want me to make them do something, you're going to have to pay.
Hell, atoms are everywhere. Lots of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and trace elements free for the taking! Why pay anyone for anything?
Re:Competition is good (Score:4, Insightful)
And again, they're all competing distro's... competing for attention and mind share.
The fact that there are so many is proof that competition is alive and well in the world of linux distros. You can construe the large number any way you want, but logic dictates that 2 or more separate groups/individuals offering similar products are in competition with each other. Doesn't matter if they're commercial vendors or not...
You also neglect the fact that due to the GPL, advances made in one of these 300+ distros are generally able flow into all the others. The only cost to the others is that they must learn the ins and outs of said advance... if they think they can improve on it they usually will... and again, everybody benefits from the competition.
One last thing: LSB - ever heard of it?
capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
it's capitalism - as long as iot's within the bounds of the law it's all about competition and squeezing your competitors out
That's not what capitalism is about, capitalism encourages competition. What you're proposing, monopolies [deoxy.org], is what what Adam Smith the Father of capitalism was opposed to. He didn't even like patents calling them a necessary evil [adamsmithslostlegacy.com]. To Adams capitalism provided a fair or equitable and optimum outcome for everyone.
Falcon
Re:confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source benefits form economies of scale just like other tools and machinery. Eventually it becomes cost effective to have motor mechanics to service your fleet of vehicles rather than being done by a third party. In which case buying vehicles for which detailed schematics are available would be advantageous. I think people get too emotional regarding the open/closed software debate. Sometimes it's just easier to buy a hammer than a hammer making kit.
Re:Reminds me of Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
"What makes me laugh is that there is such an "Us Vs Them" tone in all of it. It's like the nice business people think that all the open source guys are just waiting to kill their babies! I mean settle down."
See, I think they are focusing on the wrong businessmen.
When are the other professors in the department(s) going to offer a course teaching how businessmen can use Free Software to make profits for their company? Never mind those guys in the other course who want you to reduce your bottom line for their benefit. Do the right thing for your company.
I just had a wild idea that I will write up a bit more on:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
But in a nutshell, how about we start to make Free Music but geared for elevator music needs and music on hold needs. Perhaps the good profs can extend the course to cover the needs of the current elevator music folks as well.
Then (perhaps) businessmen will see the parallels.
all the best,
drew
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nit-pit: you generally need or want maintenance/support on your proprietary software, so it's not a one-off cost to acquire it, but a yearly or three-yearly license/maintenance fee. Thus, comparing an 80k purchase to an 80k salary isn't quite fair. However, that's irrelevant.
Most paid programmers work for consultancies that hire out their services for relatively short-term contracts in order to solve particular business needs. i.e. you don't go out and hire a full-time permanent programmer in order to write you something; instead, you pay another company to write it for you. If you need changes made, you hire them again (or someone else). Yes, this is like buying a proprietary software package, but the difference being it's only for use and not useful enough outside of your business for anyone to actually want to sell.
Think of it like most other IT jobs. Small businesses don't usually hire a fulltime systems/network administrator to manage their 10 desktops and an Exchange server; they pay another company to provide that resource when they need it. If you're a really big company that does need lots of internal software, then you might hire permanent programmers because there's always processes that could be improved upon, or you might have sufficient internal apps that there's always bugs and improvements to be made, and so on. But most businesses would simply hire on an as-needed basis.
The question then is, if you're a consultancy providing programmers for hire, why would you give away the software you write for clients? It makes more sense to hoard it so you can re-sell it to others at near original price, while actually only doing some quick customisation. The bigger your pool of software, the less actual work you need to do in order to satisfy customer needs. That means you can either undercut your competition (in terms of time to completion and/or price), or simply make craploads of profit.
I think the answer is probably: you'd do that if everyone else was doing it. So what you'll find is a small number of "open source consultants" customising open source packages to fit their clients needs, and being able to undercut the proprietary shops because of it. Once this is happening enough, formerly proprietary places will start using OSS as well because they're finding it too hard to win contracts since they have to charge so much more. From there, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
He had a legitimate question... (Score:3, Insightful)
You had a snide answer. Oh, and it's "your understanding", not "you're understanding".
He didn't say anything about little boxes.
By the way, AC, in answer to your question, and to actually illuminate rather than just tell you that you misunderstand:
Most software is written to serve the in-house needs of large-ish corporations. They need to manage their business, and to be competitive their business has to differ from other businesses serving similar needs. So they have large quantities of software to manage their inventory, coordinate their workers, manage their books, determine if payment they've been given is fraudulent, etc. The little details of all of these things are specific to the business rules of any large business.
Often those needs could be fulfilled by some commercial software, if it weren't for the hundred little things that the company needs done differently. If some open software can do basically the same thing as the commercial software, it's in the company's interest to add the features needed to support their business needs. This typically has to be done without exposing their business specific rules (i.e. without making those rules open source), but you can just make the software configurable and put the rules in some configuration file outside the OSS app.
Frankly, the only times I make changes to OSS software for pay are for basic infrastructure software (e.g. apache, ant, etc) when there is a bug or an obvious feature missing. The actual software that fulfills whatever business need is fully proprietary, except for some of the infrastructure.