4 ms·

I've worked at a DevTools company and been the CEO of one too. Here's my thoughts: I agree that they need to be open source. But that makes it really hard to

by jedberg 2mo ago

I've worked at a DevTools company and been the CEO of one too. Here's my thoughts: I agree that they need to be open source. But that makes it really hard to make a successful business. Sure, there are examples of success, but also many examples of successful open source tools never becoming successful companies. The most famous example is Sendmail (where I worked way back in the day). They took millions in funding and ultimately sold to an infra company, returning pennies on the dollar to their investors. The difficulty stems from the fact that your customers are developers and operators, and they all think that they don't need you because they are perfectly capable of running the software themselves and adding whatever they need to it. In a lot of cases they are right. And now, with AI coders, it gets 10 times worse, because they can take your open source and then vibe code a "good enough" version of your commercial product. I don't know how to square this circle. There are a lot of great dev tools made by people for free for the love of the game. But even those people need to eat. Some tools have started making licenses that are free for individuals and startups but cost money for profitable companies. That's an interesting strategy but I know some companies won't allow those tools precisely because of their license.

pbjerkeseth 2mo ago
> Some tools have started making licenses that are free for individuals and startups but cost money for profitable companies. Ive seen this as well, but at a certain point it just seems like if your code is online, someones either taking it wholesale or recreating core pieces from the spec regardless of any licensing. Its a tough time to be building OSS if you don't have distribution solved AKA some pedigree from the before times.
- jedberg 2mo ago
  > Its a tough time to be building OSS if you don't have distribution solved AKA some pedigree from the before times. I think this has always been true, but you're right, it's much more pronounced now.
rglover 2mo ago
> I don't know how to square this circle. There are a lot of great dev tools made by people for free for the love of the game. But even those people need to eat. You really don't. If people can get something for free (effectively what OSS means to the average bear these days), they will, and they really don't care if the creator/maintainer can survive. And if that creator/maintainer doesn't, the logic boils down to "what's the replacement for <insert incumbent>?" IMO, the combination of OSS and "generous free tier" SaaS plans basically nuked the willingness to pay for software, especially dev tools. Folks are just too conditioned to expect stuff to be cheap or free nowadays. Maybe that changes long-term but shrug, who knows.
- __d 2mo ago
  I don't know about the long term, but the medium term looks like "Claude, make a replacement for <software>, with the same functionality and user experience."
dismalaf 2mo ago
The answer is you don't sell the tool. You release the tool, others help you make it better, then you use the tool to build the actual thing.
- jedberg 2mo ago
  Of course, that’s how all open source companies work. Everything I said applies to what you said.
  - dismalaf 2mo ago
    No all your examples are of dev tool companies. The successful business model is more like make tool, give away tool, make random project management/accounting/tool that devs would never use and normies can't make.
- __d 2mo ago
  But the "actual thing" is presumably software too? Why is it any different to a dev tool? All software is now more-or-less available for the token cost, given a specification of what is required. It's not just FOSS: the era of commercial software is equally over. Why pay for something that leaves you dependent on a third party for bug fixes or new features? Vibe it up yourself, and pay for only what you need, when you need it.
  - dismalaf 2mo ago
    > But the "actual thing" is presumably software too? Why is it any different to a dev tool? Dev tools are a tougher sell because other devs can make them. Your normie SP500 manager isn't going to whip up some project management software in his free time.
skybrian 2mo ago
Open sourcing devtools seems like a "commodify your complement" thing. A way to do that is to sell hosting. People can self-host if they want to, but some people will prefer to pay a hosting service. This is what exe.dev is doing. Their open source devtools (like Shelley) sit on top of their hosting service and could be self-hosted. But they aren't open sourcing the software they use to run their VM hosting service.

by jedberg 2mo ago

pbjerkeseth 2mo ago

> Some tools have started making licenses that are free for individuals and startups but cost money for profitable companies. Ive seen this as well, but at a certain point it just seems like if your code is online, someones either taking it wholesale or recreating core pieces from the spec regardless of any licensing. Its a tough time to be building OSS if you don't have distribution solved AKA some pedigree from the before times.

jedberg 2mo ago
> Its a tough time to be building OSS if you don't have distribution solved AKA some pedigree from the before times. I think this has always been true, but you're right, it's much more pronounced now.

rglover 2mo ago

> I don't know how to square this circle. There are a lot of great dev tools made by people for free for the love of the game. But even those people need to eat. You really don't. If people can get something for free (effectively what OSS means to the average bear these days), they will, and they really don't care if the creator/maintainer can survive. And if that creator/maintainer doesn't, the logic boils down to "what's the replacement for <insert incumbent>?" IMO, the combination of OSS and "generous free tier" SaaS plans basically nuked the willingness to pay for software, especially dev tools. Folks are just too conditioned to expect stuff to be cheap or free nowadays. Maybe that changes long-term but shrug, who knows.

__d 2mo ago
I don't know about the long term, but the medium term looks like "Claude, make a replacement for <software>, with the same functionality and user experience."

dismalaf 2mo ago

The answer is you don't sell the tool. You release the tool, others help you make it better, then you use the tool to build the actual thing.

jedberg 2mo ago
Of course, that’s how all open source companies work. Everything I said applies to what you said.
- dismalaf 2mo ago
  No all your examples are of dev tool companies. The successful business model is more like make tool, give away tool, make random project management/accounting/tool that devs would never use and normies can't make.
__d 2mo ago
But the "actual thing" is presumably software too? Why is it any different to a dev tool? All software is now more-or-less available for the token cost, given a specification of what is required. It's not just FOSS: the era of commercial software is equally over. Why pay for something that leaves you dependent on a third party for bug fixes or new features? Vibe it up yourself, and pay for only what you need, when you need it.
- dismalaf 2mo ago
  > But the "actual thing" is presumably software too? Why is it any different to a dev tool? Dev tools are a tougher sell because other devs can make them. Your normie SP500 manager isn't going to whip up some project management software in his free time.

skybrian 2mo ago

Open sourcing devtools seems like a "commodify your complement" thing. A way to do that is to sell hosting. People can self-host if they want to, but some people will prefer to pay a hosting service. This is what exe.dev is doing. Their open source devtools (like Shelley) sit on top of their hosting service and could be self-hosted. But they aren't open sourcing the software they use to run their VM hosting service.