5 ms·

How do other companies that develop free/open source software make money? (Other than the professional support/training model that Canonical and Redhat use - it

How do other companies that develop free/open source software make money? (Other than the professional support/training model that Canonical and Redhat use - it probably doesn’t apply to Firefox)

jlarocco 6y ago
Giving software away for free isn't a business model, was never meant to be, and the math just doesn't work. There are some very small niche projects where a few small core developers make a living doing contract development implementing features and fixing bugs, but it typically doesn't scale into a company. Most successful "open source" companies use an open core model, where they provide services and proprietary add-ons related to an open source project that they contribute to but may not actually own. Think GitHub or Docker.
xiphias2 6y ago
There were multiple successful open source projects here where companies payed for taking part of the planning of new features. Google already pays for the built-in default search for Firefox, I don't see a reason why other services couldn't be built in as long as the user gets something in return and keeps its privacy/freedom.
- ZekeSulastin 6y ago
  Like Pocket/etc.? I seem to remember the userbase of sites like this excoriating Mozilla for including that, so I would assume any such effort now would be similarly rejected.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    Pocket was a too strong integration probably. Offline browsing on mobile phones is still a missing feature, and pocket doesn't solve it well. Firefox could have added the necessary features for a great pocket plugin (and its competitors) instead of just integrating with it (and buying it). Blender is a much more successful example (and there was another open source project here on HN with $300k income where companies could pay for features to be implemented, but still not company specific).
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Pocket is fine as a concept, but people didn't like getting spammed with it on their new tab page.
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      I like the Pocket spam because it is a low key way to support the project.
izacus 6y ago
They mostly don't. There's practically no companies that make meaningful revenue from opensource. Pretty much all of OSS development is a side effect of building services for other revenue streams.
syshum 6y ago
There are many ways, one way that likely will not work for FireFox either is to charge for the Complied version with a packaged installer. So while the source is open, and if you know how to compile it you can do so yourself, most people and businesses are lazy and will just pay a few dollars to have someone else do that. The problem is Edge and Chrome are free already so charging for a compiled browser is probably not going to work
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  Someone will build and host free version.
wow_no 6y ago
I think only the services model has succeeded - MongoDB, Citus, etc
Vinnl 6y ago
Interestingly Igalia seems to be making money off of contributing to browsers, among which Firefox. On quite a smaller scale than Mozilla though, I imagine.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Quite smaller. Postgres makes money too. But nothing close to what Oracle makes.
- gsnedders 6y ago
  Igalia's model almost certainly couldn't cover maintenance of the entire browser engine and the desktop/mobile browsers, yet alone any ongoing improvement. It gets specific platform ports supported on an ongoing basis (typically for embedded platforms) and new features of interest to their paying customers supported (which are, inevitably, mostly major corporations), but that's largely it. As far as I'm aware, Firefox is the browser engine they contribute least to: they have many more clients who have much more interest in WebKit or Chromium based browsers and that's where the majority of work goes.
johannes1234321 6y ago
There aren't many. You mentioned Canonical and Red hat IBM. For Canonical I actually don't know their model (they had Amazon search integrated but haven't seen them in any business context) RedHat (now IBM) has servicesl/support. For other I see with notable scale - MySQL (nowadays Oracle) with services/support and dual licensing - Qt (Trolltech/Nokia/Digi/Qt Company) with dial licensing and consulting services -MongoDB, Redis, ElasticLabs all burning VC and support, dual licensing After those the list becomes short for me. Most other open source software is side business, from doing something else (i.e. many Apache or Eclipse projects) or supported by small companies/individual developers who do consulting around it or got sometime from their employer to work on it. - npm: burning VC (and offering commercial repo) (now GitHub/Microsoft not sure they want to see profits from it or only control of the environment)
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  IIRC, Canonical gets most of their money from server support licenses, analogous to Red Hat.
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    I know they sell it, but I haven't seen them (my bubble is small of course) I only see desperate attempts (like different attempts of bringing an "app store" to Linux, now with snap)
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Canonical is Mark Shuttleworth's passion project, like the Gates Foundation. It makes a little money but only survives because he feels it's the most efficient use of his funds for charitable purpose, not financial investment.
coffeefirst 6y ago
I many cases they’re selling a complementary product. Think Vercel for Next or consulting for Ubuntu. The free thing creates a market for the expensive thing.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
In addition to other comments, every year proprietary software gets more power and profitable, providing more funding for development that makes it harder for open source to compete. That's why "they year of Linux on the desktop" gets a little farther away every year, for the largest software products like the UI shell, web browsers, video editors, etc
hodgesrm 6y ago
The answer to that question is two-fold. 1.) Many of the companies that make the most on open source are not software vendors per se but still significant contributors in their own right. Example: Google, Facebook. Kubernetes exists because of Google. Facebook has a ridiculously long list of significant projects. [1] It's really important not to ignore this because you are otherwise missing the core economics of the open source movement. 2. There are lots of companies making good money operating open source in the cloud. Data Bricks, Confluent, MongoDB, and Amazon (specifically Aurora) are good examples. I'm not saying the companies are necessarily all profitable, only that their COGS look good and they will be profitable in due time. The key is you need to have software that is worth paying other people to operate. Data management is common to many of the main contenders. Mozilla's problem is they aren't #1 and don't offer software that would allow them to become #2. [1] https://opensource.facebook.com/projects https://opensource.facebook.com/projects

How do other companies that develop free/open source software make money? (Other than the professional support/training model that Canonical and Redhat use - it probably doesn’t apply to Firefox)

jlarocco 6y ago

Giving software away for free isn't a business model, was never meant to be, and the math just doesn't work. There are some very small niche projects where a few small core developers make a living doing contract development implementing features and fixing bugs, but it typically doesn't scale into a company. Most successful "open source" companies use an open core model, where they provide services and proprietary add-ons related to an open source project that they contribute to but may not actually own. Think GitHub or Docker.

xiphias2 6y ago

There were multiple successful open source projects here where companies payed for taking part of the planning of new features. Google already pays for the built-in default search for Firefox, I don't see a reason why other services couldn't be built in as long as the user gets something in return and keeps its privacy/freedom.

ZekeSulastin 6y ago
Like Pocket/etc.? I seem to remember the userbase of sites like this excoriating Mozilla for including that, so I would assume any such effort now would be similarly rejected.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  Pocket was a too strong integration probably. Offline browsing on mobile phones is still a missing feature, and pocket doesn't solve it well. Firefox could have added the necessary features for a great pocket plugin (and its competitors) instead of just integrating with it (and buying it). Blender is a much more successful example (and there was another open source project here on HN with $300k income where companies could pay for features to be implemented, but still not company specific).
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Pocket is fine as a concept, but people didn't like getting spammed with it on their new tab page.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    I like the Pocket spam because it is a low key way to support the project.

izacus 6y ago

They mostly don't. There's practically no companies that make meaningful revenue from opensource. Pretty much all of OSS development is a side effect of building services for other revenue streams.

syshum 6y ago

There are many ways, one way that likely will not work for FireFox either is to charge for the Complied version with a packaged installer. So while the source is open, and if you know how to compile it you can do so yourself, most people and businesses are lazy and will just pay a few dollars to have someone else do that. The problem is Edge and Chrome are free already so charging for a compiled browser is probably not going to work

vbezhenar 6y ago
Someone will build and host free version.

wow_no 6y ago

I think only the services model has succeeded - MongoDB, Citus, etc

Vinnl 6y ago

Interestingly Igalia seems to be making money off of contributing to browsers, among which Firefox. On quite a smaller scale than Mozilla though, I imagine.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
Quite smaller. Postgres makes money too. But nothing close to what Oracle makes.
gsnedders 6y ago
Igalia's model almost certainly couldn't cover maintenance of the entire browser engine and the desktop/mobile browsers, yet alone any ongoing improvement. It gets specific platform ports supported on an ongoing basis (typically for embedded platforms) and new features of interest to their paying customers supported (which are, inevitably, mostly major corporations), but that's largely it. As far as I'm aware, Firefox is the browser engine they contribute least to: they have many more clients who have much more interest in WebKit or Chromium based browsers and that's where the majority of work goes.

johannes1234321 6y ago

There aren't many. You mentioned Canonical and Red hat IBM. For Canonical I actually don't know their model (they had Amazon search integrated but haven't seen them in any business context) RedHat (now IBM) has servicesl/support. For other I see with notable scale - MySQL (nowadays Oracle) with services/support and dual licensing - Qt (Trolltech/Nokia/Digi/Qt Company) with dial licensing and consulting services -MongoDB, Redis, ElasticLabs all burning VC and support, dual licensing After those the list becomes short for me. Most other open source software is side business, from doing something else (i.e. many Apache or Eclipse projects) or supported by small companies/individual developers who do consulting around it or got sometime from their employer to work on it. - npm: burning VC (and offering commercial repo) (now GitHub/Microsoft not sure they want to see profits from it or only control of the environment)

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
IIRC, Canonical gets most of their money from server support licenses, analogous to Red Hat.
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  I know they sell it, but I haven't seen them (my bubble is small of course) I only see desperate attempts (like different attempts of bringing an "app store" to Linux, now with snap)
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Canonical is Mark Shuttleworth's passion project, like the Gates Foundation. It makes a little money but only survives because he feels it's the most efficient use of his funds for charitable purpose, not financial investment.

coffeefirst 6y ago

I many cases they’re selling a complementary product. Think Vercel for Next or consulting for Ubuntu. The free thing creates a market for the expensive thing.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

In addition to other comments, every year proprietary software gets more power and profitable, providing more funding for development that makes it harder for open source to compete. That's why "they year of Linux on the desktop" gets a little farther away every year, for the largest software products like the UI shell, web browsers, video editors, etc

hodgesrm 6y ago

The answer to that question is two-fold. 1.) Many of the companies that make the most on open source are not software vendors per se but still significant contributors in their own right. Example: Google, Facebook. Kubernetes exists because of Google. Facebook has a ridiculously long list of significant projects. [1] It's really important not to ignore this because you are otherwise missing the core economics of the open source movement. 2. There are lots of companies making good money operating open source in the cloud. Data Bricks, Confluent, MongoDB, and Amazon (specifically Aurora) are good examples. I'm not saying the companies are necessarily all profitable, only that their COGS look good and they will be profitable in due time. The key is you need to have software that is worth paying other people to operate. Data management is common to many of the main contenders. Mozilla's problem is they aren't #1 and don't offer software that would allow them to become #2. [1] https://opensource.facebook.com/projects https://opensource.facebook.com/projects