5 ms·
If you provide something as a service instead of an open source library, you can theoretically monetize it in the future (in a more direct fashion than the stan
by georgemcbay 14y ago
If you provide something as a service instead of an open source library, you can theoretically monetize it in the future (in a more direct fashion than the standard FOSS support contact) which makes it possible to use to generate VC interest, which is harder to do with a pure open source option. I'm fairly sure that's why it has become common to do this, though in pure practical terms I agree with you that this system isn't ideal.
Personally, I just ignore these services because virtually always the risk of building on them and having them suddenly disappear outside of your control far outweighs the time they save you in building your own thing.
- beefsack 14y agoI still believe building open source libraries, then building a paid service using those libraries is the best way to have your cake and eat it too. A fantastic example of this is Shopify and ActiveMerchant.
- sunir 14y agoShopify is not open source. ActiveMerchant benefits Shopify by being open source because it allows third parties to write payment modules which can be folded into Shopify. Since Shopify's main competitors are written on php, asp and other non-ruby languages this amounts to a competitive advantage.