4 ms·

The software market, the Internet market, the entire ecosystem, it's working because the price of entering is lower. This isn't because of lesser regulation or

by cgm616 10y ago

The software market, the Internet market, the entire ecosystem, it's working because the price of entering is lower. This isn't because of lesser regulation or a lack of standards and oversight, it's because over the past decade it has become so easy for anyone with an Internet connection to contribute. Not necessarily make the next best software business, but contribute to open-source (a decidedly un-capitalistic idea), provide opinions and give insight, and share. This ability for anyone to connect and share with thousands of other people exactly as we are now is exclusive to this internet platform. That is the driver of success, of innovation, of technology and future. Every other media, every other market, is prohibitive to newcomers. There's a reason that disrupting a market is so praised, because it is something most everyone who tries, fails. On the Internet, in software, disruption is the name of the game. It's a brand new sandbox that anyone can play in.

WalterBright 10y ago
Open source is a very capitalist idea. It thrives because people have discovered that more money can be made with open source than with closed source. (The notion that it is un-capitalistic may stem from it not being very intuitive how it can make money.)
- WalterBright 10y ago
  A friend of mine is CEO of a medium sized company. His only product is software that helps back end servers run faster. The software is open source, he gives it away to any company that wants it. His company is doing extremely well. How is that possible? After companies use it for a while, they come back and are happy to buy a support contract rather than manage it themselves. His business would not exist without open source software that his company developed.
  - thescribe 10y ago
    This is a little off-topic but the software sounds interesting, do if you wouldn't mind I'd appreciate a link.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      Send me an email and I'll forward it to him.
  - dalke 10y ago
    I have an open source package. It comes in two forms: a no-cost one you can just download, and full-cost one where you pay me and I provide support. Both are MIT-licensed. It's a Python library and set of command-line tools for chemical similarity search. I've had a few sales. Those plus support renewals make me about $25K/year. Consulting and custom software development augment my income. Recently I was at a workshop, and found that actually many companies use my software. I had no idea it was so widely used. One even presented the results of some 60 CPU days spent using my software. They used the no-cost version, and had never considered paying me for it. (I asked. They said they had no internal mechanism to give gifts to open source developers. I said I could offer them a PO. They said they would need to justify it. I said I had a new version with better performance and more capabilities. It was a frustrating conversation.) I am not convinced that the open source, no cost, business model, where you hope that people are "happy to buy a support contract", will work for this combination of product and field. It may be that there simply aren't enough users in my field to support an open source company in the way you describe. So while I know it works for some - as you said - I believe for me and this product, a non-free/open source license would make me more money than a free license. I have a few concrete problems I've come across in selling free sofware. Given that I distribute a software product, how do I provide an evaluation version of the newer, better library? Do I simply trust that they will either pay me or not use it? If they do use it anyway, do I shrug my shoulders and walk away? How do I do market segmentation? That is, if a non-profit research site, or academic group, wants to use my software, do I give them a discount? But these are also the groups where some graduate student might look at it, see that it's open source, and put it on their github account. Which is fine. I support them doing that. But I need to price things appropriately. So it's odd that I may need to charge more for academic groups than I do pharmaceutical company (pharma being my main customer base), because academic groups are riskier sales than pharmas. Now, I could simply give it away at no cost, and hope there is enough support contract interest for the future. But I get the strong sense that people will do a one-off purchase to get the software even if they aren't willing to get a support contract after they download and start using it.
    - open-source-ux 10y ago
      Could your free version still be sold for a price but with limited or no support? For example, two licences 1. Commercial license, no support: pay $/£/€ amount 2. Commercial license with support: pay $/£/€ amount By commerical use, I mean companies or academic insitutions. Option 1 is cheaper, but presumably more than affordable for companies who want to use the software. I guess what I'm saying is that even when the software is open source, can you stipulate that payment is required if used by a commerical company or academic institution? Some companies may not pay, but I'm guessing many other companies will be happy to pay for option 1. Or am I being hopelessly naive?
WalterBright 10y ago
> This isn't because of lesser regulation or a lack of standards and oversight, it's because over the past decade it has become so easy for anyone with an Internet connection to contribute. If the government required anyone writing software to have a license, and a permit, and have the result be approved by an agency before it was distributed, there'd be orders of magnitude less people entering the business.
- y4mi 10y ago
  you're not required to have a licence to do whatever you want in your home as well. you can make your own chairs, furniture, oven, whatever... its just easier to share your homemade products/code with the community over the internet, which makes software development look less regulated. and you sure as hell won't be able to get a job outside of startups/web development without a license either.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    > in your home That's why I mentioned "distribute". > without a license I don't know any software engineers who have a license, or that a permit is required, or government approval of any sort. You can bake cookies for yourself all you want, no problem. Try and sell them, and you need to get permits, inspections, etc. Try and cut hair, you need a license.
    - y4mi 10y ago
      licenses such as LPIC and its windows equivalents hold a surprising significance in (dev-)ops. and the java certificate is often a requirement from what i've seen on my job hunts. i admit that i can't say anything beyond this though.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        Those are not licenses, as in they are not required by law for anything. I wrote a commercial Java compiler a while back for Symantec, and no permits nor license nor review whatsoever was required by the government to do it. As for running my own software business, my only involvement with the government is registering the business and paying the taxes.

by cgm616 10y ago

WalterBright 10y ago

Open source is a very capitalist idea. It thrives because people have discovered that more money can be made with open source than with closed source. (The notion that it is un-capitalistic may stem from it not being very intuitive how it can make money.)

WalterBright 10y ago
A friend of mine is CEO of a medium sized company. His only product is software that helps back end servers run faster. The software is open source, he gives it away to any company that wants it. His company is doing extremely well. How is that possible? After companies use it for a while, they come back and are happy to buy a support contract rather than manage it themselves. His business would not exist without open source software that his company developed.
- thescribe 10y ago
  This is a little off-topic but the software sounds interesting, do if you wouldn't mind I'd appreciate a link.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    Send me an email and I'll forward it to him.
- dalke 10y ago
  I have an open source package. It comes in two forms: a no-cost one you can just download, and full-cost one where you pay me and I provide support. Both are MIT-licensed. It's a Python library and set of command-line tools for chemical similarity search. I've had a few sales. Those plus support renewals make me about $25K/year. Consulting and custom software development augment my income. Recently I was at a workshop, and found that actually many companies use my software. I had no idea it was so widely used. One even presented the results of some 60 CPU days spent using my software. They used the no-cost version, and had never considered paying me for it. (I asked. They said they had no internal mechanism to give gifts to open source developers. I said I could offer them a PO. They said they would need to justify it. I said I had a new version with better performance and more capabilities. It was a frustrating conversation.) I am not convinced that the open source, no cost, business model, where you hope that people are "happy to buy a support contract", will work for this combination of product and field. It may be that there simply aren't enough users in my field to support an open source company in the way you describe. So while I know it works for some - as you said - I believe for me and this product, a non-free/open source license would make me more money than a free license. I have a few concrete problems I've come across in selling free sofware. Given that I distribute a software product, how do I provide an evaluation version of the newer, better library? Do I simply trust that they will either pay me or not use it? If they do use it anyway, do I shrug my shoulders and walk away? How do I do market segmentation? That is, if a non-profit research site, or academic group, wants to use my software, do I give them a discount? But these are also the groups where some graduate student might look at it, see that it's open source, and put it on their github account. Which is fine. I support them doing that. But I need to price things appropriately. So it's odd that I may need to charge more for academic groups than I do pharmaceutical company (pharma being my main customer base), because academic groups are riskier sales than pharmas. Now, I could simply give it away at no cost, and hope there is enough support contract interest for the future. But I get the strong sense that people will do a one-off purchase to get the software even if they aren't willing to get a support contract after they download and start using it.
  - open-source-ux 10y ago
    Could your free version still be sold for a price but with limited or no support? For example, two licences 1. Commercial license, no support: pay $/£/€ amount 2. Commercial license with support: pay $/£/€ amount By commerical use, I mean companies or academic insitutions. Option 1 is cheaper, but presumably more than affordable for companies who want to use the software. I guess what I'm saying is that even when the software is open source, can you stipulate that payment is required if used by a commerical company or academic institution? Some companies may not pay, but I'm guessing many other companies will be happy to pay for option 1. Or am I being hopelessly naive?

WalterBright 10y ago

> This isn't because of lesser regulation or a lack of standards and oversight, it's because over the past decade it has become so easy for anyone with an Internet connection to contribute. If the government required anyone writing software to have a license, and a permit, and have the result be approved by an agency before it was distributed, there'd be orders of magnitude less people entering the business.

y4mi 10y ago
you're not required to have a licence to do whatever you want in your home as well. you can make your own chairs, furniture, oven, whatever... its just easier to share your homemade products/code with the community over the internet, which makes software development look less regulated. and you sure as hell won't be able to get a job outside of startups/web development without a license either.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  > in your home That's why I mentioned "distribute". > without a license I don't know any software engineers who have a license, or that a permit is required, or government approval of any sort. You can bake cookies for yourself all you want, no problem. Try and sell them, and you need to get permits, inspections, etc. Try and cut hair, you need a license.
  - y4mi 10y ago
    licenses such as LPIC and its windows equivalents hold a surprising significance in (dev-)ops. and the java certificate is often a requirement from what i've seen on my job hunts. i admit that i can't say anything beyond this though.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      Those are not licenses, as in they are not required by law for anything. I wrote a commercial Java compiler a while back for Symantec, and no permits nor license nor review whatsoever was required by the government to do it. As for running my own software business, my only involvement with the government is registering the business and paying the taxes.