3 ms·

> As I see it, if your startup's business model relies on your core code being proprietary, you don't have a business model. That’s an odd statement. Most soft

by dangus 2y ago

> As I see it, if your startup's business model relies on your core code being proprietary, you don't have a business model. That’s an odd statement. Most software companies have their core product as closed source. Microsoft and Google built an empire on closed software. The only ones that use open source have a business reason to do so, usually because they make tools that depend on widespread adoption. E.g., there’s no need for Jira, Salesforce, Notion, or Facebook to be open source because they don’t directly integrate with their customer’s software development or IT process. Their products have almost nothing to do with software so the code inside doesn’t matter to the customer.

OutOfHere 2y ago
> there’s no need for Jira, Salesforce, Notion, or Facebook to be open source This is orthogonal to what I said. Which of these companies strongly rely on their core code being proprietary? In other words, which of these companies would perish if they adopted open source? In any case, at least Meta has a strong open source presence. > The only ones that use open source have a business reason to do so, usually because they make tools that depend on widespread adoption. The reason you noted is just one of many reasons for open sourcing software. Other reasons include the belief that open source is good for the world and for hiring developers too. This goodness usually comes back in kind. Not everything in this world is about immediate corporate greed, but with your mentality, you will never understand it.
- dangus 2y ago
  Meta’s open source presence is for tooling, not their revenue-generating product. They benefit from their tools and frameworks being open source because they receive free labor from outside contributors, and they give away very little in dollar value by keeping those tools open source. There is no way to sell React and make even a noticeable fraction of the profit that Facebook does. Their value is orders of magnitude apart. For-profit companies struggle to actually make a real profit off of those types of tools and frameworks because there’s so much benefit to having them be open source. That’s not where the money is. React isn’t a money-generating product and likely wouldn’t be a strong business on its own. Jira, Salesforce, and Notion would all sacrifice a dramatic amount of revenue if their core product was open source. Why would anyone pay for those products if you could self-host them for free? Open source may be good for the world but we are talking about for-profit businesses. Corporate greed is literally how they run. The only time a business makes something open source is when it directly benefits them. You can say whatever you want about good karma but that is not how businesses make decisions about how they generate revenue. The goodness does not usually come back in kind in the world of business. Again, the example is Meta. React having outside contributors benefits Meta more than keeping the library closed source. Other companies who use React don’t generally compete with Meta’s bread and butter revenue product, and even if they do, it’s not giving them any specific business advantage over Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp.

by dangus 2y ago

OutOfHere 2y ago

> there’s no need for Jira, Salesforce, Notion, or Facebook to be open source This is orthogonal to what I said. Which of these companies strongly rely on their core code being proprietary? In other words, which of these companies would perish if they adopted open source? In any case, at least Meta has a strong open source presence. > The only ones that use open source have a business reason to do so, usually because they make tools that depend on widespread adoption. The reason you noted is just one of many reasons for open sourcing software. Other reasons include the belief that open source is good for the world and for hiring developers too. This goodness usually comes back in kind. Not everything in this world is about immediate corporate greed, but with your mentality, you will never understand it.

dangus 2y ago
Meta’s open source presence is for tooling, not their revenue-generating product. They benefit from their tools and frameworks being open source because they receive free labor from outside contributors, and they give away very little in dollar value by keeping those tools open source. There is no way to sell React and make even a noticeable fraction of the profit that Facebook does. Their value is orders of magnitude apart. For-profit companies struggle to actually make a real profit off of those types of tools and frameworks because there’s so much benefit to having them be open source. That’s not where the money is. React isn’t a money-generating product and likely wouldn’t be a strong business on its own. Jira, Salesforce, and Notion would all sacrifice a dramatic amount of revenue if their core product was open source. Why would anyone pay for those products if you could self-host them for free? Open source may be good for the world but we are talking about for-profit businesses. Corporate greed is literally how they run. The only time a business makes something open source is when it directly benefits them. You can say whatever you want about good karma but that is not how businesses make decisions about how they generate revenue. The goodness does not usually come back in kind in the world of business. Again, the example is Meta. React having outside contributors benefits Meta more than keeping the library closed source. Other companies who use React don’t generally compete with Meta’s bread and butter revenue product, and even if they do, it’s not giving them any specific business advantage over Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp.