3 ms·

> Not only it costs more, it also does not really mitigate risk and it just gives an excuse to a manager to punt the problem to someone else. > You can do it i

by mbesto 4y ago

> Not only it costs more, it also does not really mitigate risk and it just gives an excuse to a manager to punt the problem to someone else. > You can do it in-house, or you can outsource it You are 100% correct companies should do this AND better yet this is exactly what is referred to as "Buy vs Build"[0]. You keep trying to convince me and others that companies ARE NOT DOING THIS ANALYSIS. I'm telling you that they most certainly are because it's literally what I do for a living (tech strategy consulting). And guess what, the reason companies keep coming back to closed-sourced providers (GitHub, etc.) is because over and over again we conclude it makes financial sense to do so. > at least throw some money to the developers of the open alternatives as a hedge and eventual way out. Now, this part is a hilarious suggestion. No one does this or would do this, because it makes zero financial sense. [0] - https://medium.com/adobetech/when-to-build-vs-buy-enterprise-platform-risks-benefits-and-considerations-fea358449b30 https://medium.com/adobetech/when-to-build-vs-buy-enterprise...

rglullis 4y ago
> You keep trying to convince me and others that companies ARE NOT DOING THIS ANALYSIS. I am not arguing that they don't do "buy vs build" analysis. What I am saying is that they stop here, where it would be smart if they look for other options. > No one does this or would do this, because it makes zero financial sense. This is what I am saying that companies DON'T DO, and I am arguing that not doing this is short-sighted. There are plenty of strategic reasons that make it reasonable to invest in open source projects: - It is good PR. [0] - It can help with hiring: [1] - It can be used as a negotiation tactic when dealing with different vendors. This is just an extension of the "Smart companies commoditize their complements" [2] idea from Joel Spolsky. Going back to the 1Password example: even if you still want to continue using 1Password, the "threat" of a viable open source alternative is enough for them to not try to jack up prices. By investing small sums in open source projects, you might be able to negotiate the price down on the closed services that you depend on. - It reduces the risk of becoming locked into solutions from third-party vendors. Even if your company "keeps going back to Github", it might be wise to contribute to the development of an alternative as a backup plan. So, if push comes to shove and Github outages become so problematic that the they affect your business, there is a way out. Not to mention that it can be tax-deductable, so you can get all these benefits without really affecting your bottom line. [0]: https://blog.sentry.io/2021/10/21/we-just-gave-154-999-dollars-and-89-cents-to-open-source-maintainers https://blog.sentry.io/2021/10/21/we-just-gave-154-999-dolla... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31679118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31679118 [2]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

by mbesto 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

> You keep trying to convince me and others that companies ARE NOT DOING THIS ANALYSIS. I am not arguing that they don't do "buy vs build" analysis. What I am saying is that they stop here, where it would be smart if they look for other options. > No one does this or would do this, because it makes zero financial sense. This is what I am saying that companies DON'T DO, and I am arguing that not doing this is short-sighted. There are plenty of strategic reasons that make it reasonable to invest in open source projects: - It is good PR. [0] - It can help with hiring: [1] - It can be used as a negotiation tactic when dealing with different vendors. This is just an extension of the "Smart companies commoditize their complements" [2] idea from Joel Spolsky. Going back to the 1Password example: even if you still want to continue using 1Password, the "threat" of a viable open source alternative is enough for them to not try to jack up prices. By investing small sums in open source projects, you might be able to negotiate the price down on the closed services that you depend on. - It reduces the risk of becoming locked into solutions from third-party vendors. Even if your company "keeps going back to Github", it might be wise to contribute to the development of an alternative as a backup plan. So, if push comes to shove and Github outages become so problematic that the they affect your business, there is a way out. Not to mention that it can be tax-deductable, so you can get all these benefits without really affecting your bottom line. [0]: https://blog.sentry.io/2021/10/21/we-just-gave-154-999-dollars-and-89-cents-to-open-source-maintainers https://blog.sentry.io/2021/10/21/we-just-gave-154-999-dolla... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31679118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31679118 [2]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/