4 ms·

> Open Source Doesn't Make Money Because It Isn't Designed to Make Money What? RedHat - $34B MuleSoft - $6.5B Elastic - $5B Cloudera + Hortonworks - $5B P

> Open Source Doesn't Make Money Because It Isn't Designed to Make Money What? RedHat - $34B MuleSoft - $6.5B Elastic - $5B Cloudera + Hortonworks - $5B Pivotal Software - $4.7B MongoDB - $3.5B

gnat 8y ago
Those are businesses. Businesses are designed to make money. Open Source is a category of licenses designed to facilitate distribution of software. I feel like much of the problems mentioned in this thread come down to people wanting to be paid to write software but not building a business that lets them do that. They spent all their time working on the software and not the business. The book "The E Myth" about entrepreneurship tackles this. "You're a baker who loves to bake. You start a bakery. Now you're a business person first, not a baker." They say "you work ON the business, not IN the business." In business, you trade money for value. If it's high value they can't get elsewhere, you might get a lot of money in the trade. You work on your business by figuring out what value you'll sell, and to whom ... and design your business by choosing those parameters so you make a living. It's no different with musicians and photographers. You can love their craft, and be good at it, but not find something to sell that makes you a living. Wedding photographers generally don't like their job, but it pays great. It's generally not the art form they prefer, but it's the one that's easiest to make a living at. Business is this constant negotiation between supply (you, the programmer) and demand (the people you're hoping will give you money). Not every product sits at a profitable place on this curve. Open Source privileges the Creator, not the Buyer. I can make whatever I like and give it away for free. I might have one user or a hundred million. Because it's not a business model (an exchange of value for money), it isn't at all concerned with the financial viability of the programmer's lifestyle. That's why surveys repeatedly find that "most" "programmers" work for a company and are paid to produce open source (for some values of "most" and "programmers"). The companies handle the messy business stuff that isn't as much fun as coding, and programmers just get on with coding.
- everdev 8y ago
  OK, following that logic then there isn't much money in anything besides business.
  - mamon 8y ago
    That's exactly how it works: profits from business go to shareholders and executives, who are business people first and may have no idea about their company's business domain (how many GMC executives would be able to repair your car?)

> Open Source Doesn't Make Money Because It Isn't Designed to Make Money What? RedHat - $34B MuleSoft - $6.5B Elastic - $5B Cloudera + Hortonworks - $5B Pivotal Software - $4.7B MongoDB - $3.5B

gnat 8y ago

Those are businesses. Businesses are designed to make money. Open Source is a category of licenses designed to facilitate distribution of software. I feel like much of the problems mentioned in this thread come down to people wanting to be paid to write software but not building a business that lets them do that. They spent all their time working on the software and not the business. The book "The E Myth" about entrepreneurship tackles this. "You're a baker who loves to bake. You start a bakery. Now you're a business person first, not a baker." They say "you work ON the business, not IN the business." In business, you trade money for value. If it's high value they can't get elsewhere, you might get a lot of money in the trade. You work on your business by figuring out what value you'll sell, and to whom ... and design your business by choosing those parameters so you make a living. It's no different with musicians and photographers. You can love their craft, and be good at it, but not find something to sell that makes you a living. Wedding photographers generally don't like their job, but it pays great. It's generally not the art form they prefer, but it's the one that's easiest to make a living at. Business is this constant negotiation between supply (you, the programmer) and demand (the people you're hoping will give you money). Not every product sits at a profitable place on this curve. Open Source privileges the Creator, not the Buyer. I can make whatever I like and give it away for free. I might have one user or a hundred million. Because it's not a business model (an exchange of value for money), it isn't at all concerned with the financial viability of the programmer's lifestyle. That's why surveys repeatedly find that "most" "programmers" work for a company and are paid to produce open source (for some values of "most" and "programmers"). The companies handle the messy business stuff that isn't as much fun as coding, and programmers just get on with coding.

everdev 8y ago
OK, following that logic then there isn't much money in anything besides business.
- mamon 8y ago
  That's exactly how it works: profits from business go to shareholders and executives, who are business people first and may have no idea about their company's business domain (how many GMC executives would be able to repair your car?)