8 ms·

> please do try! This is not very convincing as a reply to the risks pointed out in the previous post. The choice of the word "try" seemingly recognizes the ri

> please do try! This is not very convincing as a reply to the risks pointed out in the previous post. The choice of the word "try" seemingly recognizes the risk of failure, but you seem to ignore the serious consequences of such a failure for founder and employees. I mean, this is not a game.

sh79 3y ago
Building a company inherently carries a risk of failure with it. You seem to be taking it the wrong way, you really shouldn't be building your company based on a few opinions of HN comments, nor it's their responsibility to outline the full extent of risks involved.
- rmbyrro 3y ago
  The point is that Open Source, by design, drammatically increases the likelihood of failure. It's already hard to build a successful business. Odds are already thin for you to succeed. Why choose a model that worsens it? Open Source was not created as a funding source to for-profit ventures. That's what these businesses are doing: raising labour funds for free to fund a profitable product. That's not the spirit and the purpose of Open Source.
  - jraph 3y ago
    > That's what these businesses are doing: raising labour funds for free to fund a profitable product. That's not the spirit and the purpose of Open Source. You are misguided. Here's what the company that employs me does: - develop an open source product. Open to contributions, but most of the dev is done by employees. - sell support and consulting on this product - sell pre-packaged open source extensions to this product, with support Totally withing the free software / open source spirit. The world gets great open source software for free (not open core: truly and completely open source), and the business behind it is sustainable as well. We also donate to some open source projects that we use, chosen by employees. At some point, if you want open source to take over, you need it to grow and strive, and having it supported by business is a great way of getting this. The world probably cannot be run only by side projects. Not saying that all open source companies behave this well, but it's not an impossible outcome.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      I think for many “open source companies” there’s some underpants gnomes business planning going on: 1. Open source product 2. ??? 3. Profit! Open source isn’t a magical bandaid though it may get you some early traction, the same you can get by having a free plan. If you develop it appropriately and plan it out, it CAN be successful. But you have to think it out and choose an appropriate license, etc. Most successful open source companies would have been successful as closed-source; and you rarely can take a closed-source product and make it successful by going open source.
      - jraph 3y ago
        > Open source isn’t a magical bandaid though it may get you some early traction, the same you can get by having a free plan. I'm with you on this. You need to carefully plan. I also strongly believe you should not go with VC money. That excludes "burning money and we'll figure it out later". Your open source project will therefore probably start as a side project and/or with government help dedicated to business creators. > Most successful open source companies would have been successful as closed-source I believe this too. Now, there are more and more things that require open source products. Open source companies, including the one I work at, have received funds from openDesk [1] to develop a complete suit of open source tools. More and more research labs, universities and public institutions require open source. So there's a dedicated market that's growing. You may succeed as a closed source company, probably more easily than as an open source company. But the story is not that clear cut, and it also depends on what you want to build and whether you really want to build that awesome product as closed source. [1] https://www.openproject.org/blog/sovereign-workplace/ https://www.openproject.org/blog/sovereign-workplace/
    - skeeter2020 3y ago
      IME when you dig into the project and financials for companies like yours they're not software companies but service companies. This is not an insult; the economics are much different, and typically don't get the scalability that made software so ridiculously profitable.
      - 3y ago
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  You're right that it's no one on HN's responsibility to outline the full risks of starting a business, but no one is claiming otherwise. Presumably jraph's goal in writing their comment is to convince us that starting an Open Source company is a good idea -- but they haven't succeeded, for the reasons mentioned. If they want to convince more people, then they should come up with counterarguments to the top level post's arguments (and if they don't want to convince more people, that's fine too).
  - jraph 3y ago
    > but they haven't succeeded, for the reasons mentioned No, I haven't succeeded because I haven't tried yet. However, I am surrounded by open source companies that succeeded. The comment I responded to obviously reasons theoretically, and confuses some things. I will answer two aspects of it: > Open Source makes "competing" with an existing company trivial, but with none of the invested costs. So the first mover, the program author, is always at a strategic disadvantage That's not true. You can't just take some open source program developed by someone else and make money out of it. Let's say I develop open source product P. I offer support and consulting. Let's say you want to compete with me on P. You initially lack the expertise and the notoriety. If Alice and Bob want to get support or consulting for product P, they'd better turn to P experts, which is the company that builds P, me. For you to get customers, you need to prove the world that you are an expert. It takes spending time with the code, and also on marketing. But while you are spending time on this, I am too. You will also fatally need to contribute improvements to the product you are selling to make your customers happy. Actually, if you start contributing, it's a win for both of us and our companies can even be friends. I'm not making this up. That's actually where I work. > This is not an accident- it is baked into the very point of open source So we just countered this. I'm not saying there's no risk. but that's not "by construction". > There's a reason that very few people in the bazaar actually make decent money. There's a reason the cathedral has treasures. And now we are confusing development methods, not "open source vs not open source". You don't need to be organized in "bazaar" to build free software. Look how, for instance, SQLite, as open as you could dream, manages very well with their non contribution policy. They are profitable. They have a "first mover advantage". > These are two pretty distinct concepts, and the (traditional) motives for those two things don't merge terribly well. Well, they can. But my biggest argument is that you don't need to believe me. Many "actually open source" companies have succeeded. So, what gives? I don't need to actually build an open source company to prove my point. Others have been doing well. Maybe me in the future, that's not completely excluded. Thing is, being employed also has advantages.
- subtra3t 3y ago
  > risk of failure with it And licensing one's product seems to amplify that risk. > based on a few opinions of HN comments What if someone does do that? As a HN commenter I can't bypass the possibility that somebody takes my comment at face value without conducting proper research and analysis. HN comments (and really all content on the Internet in general) should be written responsibly. I am not saying that GP didn't write their comment responsibly. > nor it's their responsibility to outline the full extent of risks involved But then you can't raise complaints when somebody does outline the full extent of risks involved.
  - jraph 3y ago
    > I can't bypass the possibility that somebody takes my comment at face value without conducting proper research and analysis Someone not conducting proper research is doomed to fail at building a company anyway. You should be careful in writing HN comments but you should not feel responsible for a business failing. Someone reading should also read comments from anyone, one's writing does not go unchecked for long on HN.
- skeeter2020 3y ago
  Yes, but the response of "just try" is basically saying "do something the extra-hard way".
  - jraph 3y ago
    > do something the extra-hard way indeed > just try I did say "please" try, the nuance is quite important :-) You know, I think the views differ because we have two problems: 1. How can I create a profitable company 2. How can I make my open source work sustainable If you only target 1, open source might not be the more immediately easy solution. I'm aiming at 2, and 1 is one way to do it: given I want to live from open source work (because of my convictions), can I do it by building a company? The answer is: it might be harder, but yes. If you don't care about open source, my comments here are just mostly annoying.
    - bruce511 3y ago
      Oh, making a profitable company, of any kind, isn't easy :) . Most businesses fail. (90% within 5 years, something like 1% make it to 10.) Of course there are successful examples of just about every model under the sun. If you can find a model, and a business which allows externalities like Open Source then that's fantastic. And yo be clear I'm not saying companies fail because they are Open Source. Mostly they'll fail for the same reasons every other model folks- they don't generate enough cash to pay the bills. Indeed Open Source can be an attractive start. There's at least a chance of free labor. There's some marketing milage. The problem is not the start. The problem is when the money starts flowing. When you're "surviving" no-one is really incentived to muscle in. When you start "thriving" then suddenly your space looks really interesting to others.

sh79 3y ago

Building a company inherently carries a risk of failure with it. You seem to be taking it the wrong way, you really shouldn't be building your company based on a few opinions of HN comments, nor it's their responsibility to outline the full extent of risks involved.

rmbyrro 3y ago
The point is that Open Source, by design, drammatically increases the likelihood of failure. It's already hard to build a successful business. Odds are already thin for you to succeed. Why choose a model that worsens it? Open Source was not created as a funding source to for-profit ventures. That's what these businesses are doing: raising labour funds for free to fund a profitable product. That's not the spirit and the purpose of Open Source.
- jraph 3y ago
  > That's what these businesses are doing: raising labour funds for free to fund a profitable product. That's not the spirit and the purpose of Open Source. You are misguided. Here's what the company that employs me does: - develop an open source product. Open to contributions, but most of the dev is done by employees. - sell support and consulting on this product - sell pre-packaged open source extensions to this product, with support Totally withing the free software / open source spirit. The world gets great open source software for free (not open core: truly and completely open source), and the business behind it is sustainable as well. We also donate to some open source projects that we use, chosen by employees. At some point, if you want open source to take over, you need it to grow and strive, and having it supported by business is a great way of getting this. The world probably cannot be run only by side projects. Not saying that all open source companies behave this well, but it's not an impossible outcome.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    I think for many “open source companies” there’s some underpants gnomes business planning going on: 1. Open source product 2. ??? 3. Profit! Open source isn’t a magical bandaid though it may get you some early traction, the same you can get by having a free plan. If you develop it appropriately and plan it out, it CAN be successful. But you have to think it out and choose an appropriate license, etc. Most successful open source companies would have been successful as closed-source; and you rarely can take a closed-source product and make it successful by going open source.
    - jraph 3y ago
      > Open source isn’t a magical bandaid though it may get you some early traction, the same you can get by having a free plan. I'm with you on this. You need to carefully plan. I also strongly believe you should not go with VC money. That excludes "burning money and we'll figure it out later". Your open source project will therefore probably start as a side project and/or with government help dedicated to business creators. > Most successful open source companies would have been successful as closed-source I believe this too. Now, there are more and more things that require open source products. Open source companies, including the one I work at, have received funds from openDesk [1] to develop a complete suit of open source tools. More and more research labs, universities and public institutions require open source. So there's a dedicated market that's growing. You may succeed as a closed source company, probably more easily than as an open source company. But the story is not that clear cut, and it also depends on what you want to build and whether you really want to build that awesome product as closed source. [1] https://www.openproject.org/blog/sovereign-workplace/ https://www.openproject.org/blog/sovereign-workplace/
  - skeeter2020 3y ago
    IME when you dig into the project and financials for companies like yours they're not software companies but service companies. This is not an insult; the economics are much different, and typically don't get the scalability that made software so ridiculously profitable.
    - 3y ago
akoboldfrying 3y ago
You're right that it's no one on HN's responsibility to outline the full risks of starting a business, but no one is claiming otherwise. Presumably jraph's goal in writing their comment is to convince us that starting an Open Source company is a good idea -- but they haven't succeeded, for the reasons mentioned. If they want to convince more people, then they should come up with counterarguments to the top level post's arguments (and if they don't want to convince more people, that's fine too).
- jraph 3y ago
  > but they haven't succeeded, for the reasons mentioned No, I haven't succeeded because I haven't tried yet. However, I am surrounded by open source companies that succeeded. The comment I responded to obviously reasons theoretically, and confuses some things. I will answer two aspects of it: > Open Source makes "competing" with an existing company trivial, but with none of the invested costs. So the first mover, the program author, is always at a strategic disadvantage That's not true. You can't just take some open source program developed by someone else and make money out of it. Let's say I develop open source product P. I offer support and consulting. Let's say you want to compete with me on P. You initially lack the expertise and the notoriety. If Alice and Bob want to get support or consulting for product P, they'd better turn to P experts, which is the company that builds P, me. For you to get customers, you need to prove the world that you are an expert. It takes spending time with the code, and also on marketing. But while you are spending time on this, I am too. You will also fatally need to contribute improvements to the product you are selling to make your customers happy. Actually, if you start contributing, it's a win for both of us and our companies can even be friends. I'm not making this up. That's actually where I work. > This is not an accident- it is baked into the very point of open source So we just countered this. I'm not saying there's no risk. but that's not "by construction". > There's a reason that very few people in the bazaar actually make decent money. There's a reason the cathedral has treasures. And now we are confusing development methods, not "open source vs not open source". You don't need to be organized in "bazaar" to build free software. Look how, for instance, SQLite, as open as you could dream, manages very well with their non contribution policy. They are profitable. They have a "first mover advantage". > These are two pretty distinct concepts, and the (traditional) motives for those two things don't merge terribly well. Well, they can. But my biggest argument is that you don't need to believe me. Many "actually open source" companies have succeeded. So, what gives? I don't need to actually build an open source company to prove my point. Others have been doing well. Maybe me in the future, that's not completely excluded. Thing is, being employed also has advantages.
subtra3t 3y ago
> risk of failure with it And licensing one's product seems to amplify that risk. > based on a few opinions of HN comments What if someone does do that? As a HN commenter I can't bypass the possibility that somebody takes my comment at face value without conducting proper research and analysis. HN comments (and really all content on the Internet in general) should be written responsibly. I am not saying that GP didn't write their comment responsibly. > nor it's their responsibility to outline the full extent of risks involved But then you can't raise complaints when somebody does outline the full extent of risks involved.
- jraph 3y ago
  > I can't bypass the possibility that somebody takes my comment at face value without conducting proper research and analysis Someone not conducting proper research is doomed to fail at building a company anyway. You should be careful in writing HN comments but you should not feel responsible for a business failing. Someone reading should also read comments from anyone, one's writing does not go unchecked for long on HN.
skeeter2020 3y ago
Yes, but the response of "just try" is basically saying "do something the extra-hard way".
- jraph 3y ago
  > do something the extra-hard way indeed > just try I did say "please" try, the nuance is quite important :-) You know, I think the views differ because we have two problems: 1. How can I create a profitable company 2. How can I make my open source work sustainable If you only target 1, open source might not be the more immediately easy solution. I'm aiming at 2, and 1 is one way to do it: given I want to live from open source work (because of my convictions), can I do it by building a company? The answer is: it might be harder, but yes. If you don't care about open source, my comments here are just mostly annoying.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    Oh, making a profitable company, of any kind, isn't easy :) . Most businesses fail. (90% within 5 years, something like 1% make it to 10.) Of course there are successful examples of just about every model under the sun. If you can find a model, and a business which allows externalities like Open Source then that's fantastic. And yo be clear I'm not saying companies fail because they are Open Source. Mostly they'll fail for the same reasons every other model folks- they don't generate enough cash to pay the bills. Indeed Open Source can be an attractive start. There's at least a chance of free labor. There's some marketing milage. The problem is not the start. The problem is when the money starts flowing. When you're "surviving" no-one is really incentived to muscle in. When you start "thriving" then suddenly your space looks really interesting to others.