4 ms·

> Please explain why you believe this is true. Maybe because when you give people the right to freely copy, use and redistribute your code it's a bit hard to t

> Please explain why you believe this is true. Maybe because when you give people the right to freely copy, use and redistribute your code it's a bit hard to then ask them to pay for it.

sarciszewski 12y ago
Well, I'm sorry you aren't imaginative enough to design a business model which generates revenue from anything other than controlling the supply and charging admission prices. Some ways to milk $ out of free software include: - Being the de-facto expert in your product (hello sweet 6-7 figure consulting contracts when an Enterprise picks it up) - Training - Tech support (hand-holding) - Publish books about the subject The list goes on. If enough people adopt a free software project, that doesn't preclude the person (or persons) who release it from turning a profit. It just ensures they can't do so at the expense of the liberty of their users.
- grimtrigger 12y ago
  What if you're a coder who has no interest in any of those things? Many people get into SaaS specifically so they don't have to work with bureaucracies any more. Book publishing can sometimes be alternative, but what if your code is so intuitive and easy to understand that no one needs a book about it? Or what if you're a bad communicator and someone else writes a much better book?
- morgante 12y ago
  Open Source business models exist, but they are nowhere near lucrative enough to sustain all software developers. Who are you supposed to train or publish books to if every developer is somehow trying to eke out a living in this "open source" world?
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Well, the above is "business models that could support creating a new project" - in principle one can also eke out a living extending and adapting other people's projects for people willing to pay. Indeed, a huge percentage of programmers currently ekeing out a living programming are already effectively doing that, often in situations where things are proprietary only by default (as in, it's license says you can't share it, but if its license said otherwise it still wouldn't be shared because it's too specific to what one particular company is doing).
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  * Being the de-facto expert in your product For some things this may work, but if someone's going to be investing 6-7 figure consulting contracts, and the code is open and free, they'll eventually replace you with someone else in-house. * Training Isn't a recurring or ongoing stream. * Tech support If you design your product/service well enough, people probably won't need much hand-holding. Or... someone else will take the code and make a better version that doesn't need the hand-holding, and win your potential customers away. * Books Again... not really recurring. Yes, there's ways to make money, but none of these are terribly good business models. Books? Entire massive companies based around books are folding or shrinking. Suggesting that someone's business model be based on books is... weird. And when the code is open, you'll face more potential competition than if the code was closed. ACK - I missed your 'milk' phrase. 'Milking money' just doesn't scream 'solid business model' - it screams out "petty vendor who will nickel and dime me to death".
  - sarciszewski 12y ago
    > they'll eventually replace you with someone else in-house Yeah, that's why you don't put all your eggs in the same basket :) > ACK - I missed your 'milk' phrase. 'Milking money' just doesn't scream 'solid business model' - it screams out "petty vendor who will nickel and dime me to death". I view business as inherently evil and selfish. I am choosing to engage in business because I don't care about being good.
    - ehrman 12y ago
      > I view business as inherently evil and selfish. I suggest rebuilding your frame of reference. Offering something of value for a profit is not evil. It may be considered selfish, but it is also selfish to offer something of value for free to gain moral high ground, peer recognition, and resume fodder. Being selfish isn't evil; survival isn't evil. You live in a community that has rules and values, and if you live in the spirit of those rules and values, being selfish isn't causing harm, and in most cases, helps others. When a business bends those rules, or breaks them with no regard for the community, that can be considered unethical and in some cases "immoral" and possibly evil by some definitions. If your business model doesn't take advantage of customers, employees, or the surrounding community, you probably have a good business plan.
- teleclimber 12y ago
  > I'm sorry you aren't imaginative enough... No need to be condescending. I've actually been researching this a fair bit lately for a new project. What I found was that even though people parrot the revenue models you list above, the reality is that it is far more risky to go open than to "control the supply". The margins on services (consulting, training, support etc..) are much lower than selling the code. Here is one example I came across showing how it's no slam-dunk: http://www.locomotivecms.com/articles/we-tried-to-solve-the-open-source-revenue-equation#.VJ2ga8ACD http://www.locomotivecms.com/articles/we-tried-to-solve-the-...
  - sarciszewski 12y ago
    > No need to be condescending. I disagree because this is HN
    - dang 12y ago
      Because this is HN, there is a need not to be condescending. Please re-read the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html.
  - maxlybbert 12y ago
    I've created closed source software for many years now, and we've happily reduced our costs by incorporating open source software (where the licenses permit). We've also paid for proprietary libraries. I would be surprised to find anybody doing serious development without relying on open source software somewhere. And the companies I've worked for have generally been very willing to release code as open source, partly for goodwill and advertising (we've received several job applicants who only learned about us through our contributions to open source projects), and partly to avoid the cost of maintaining an internal fork of, say, Boost or JQuery. Even if you can't open source the whole kaboodle, it's often possible to release something, especially additions to existing open source projects.
    - 12y ago
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  Anybody can do what you are mentioning. Competition is fierce and training and tech support aren't scalable for a small shop. You also forgot to mention the culture behind many Foss projects: profit is seen as evil and your project will get forked, the second you try to turn a profit. Foss users expect free support, bug fixing, and software. Part of the entitled generation of internet users. If you want to make a living, proprietary services all the way.
  - sarciszewski 12y ago
    > Anybody can do what you are mentioning. Yes, that's the point of free software. Everyone can. > Competition is fierce and training and tech support aren't scalable for a small shop. I think you're underestimating the degree to which most of the world outside of IT (and including much of the world inside IT) is too lazy to figure it out and would rather pay money for a black box that solves their problems. > Foss users expect free support, bug fixing, and software. Part of the entitled generation of internet users. Not all of us do. And if your audience is companies, not users, the goals align differently.
    - paulhauggis 12y ago
      "Yes, that's the point of free software. Everyone can." So by open sourcing my product, I am opening myself up to all sorts of competition. Not a very smart way to run a business. "I think you're underestimating the degree to which most of the world outside of IT (and including much of the world inside IT) is too lazy to figure it out and would rather pay money for a black box that solves their problems." You're right. But if anyone can do it (mentioned above), it will eventually be a race to the bottom (based on cost) when software is equal. "Not all of us do. And if your audience is companies, not users, the goals align differently." I run a business. I wouldn't hire a 1 or 2 person shop for support of an open source project. I have had way too many bad experiences. When you are just starting out, it's hard enough to make money. Why make it even more difficult by increasing competition and doing something that will not scale well? I saw this in one of your other posts: "I view business as inherently evil and selfish. I am choosing to engage in business because I don't care about being good." I wish you would have said this in the first place. I would have not wasted the time responding to you.
- chc 12y ago
  #1 is being a consultant. #2 is being a teacher. #3 is being a consultant. #4 is being an author. None of these involve making money off the software. They all involve side businesses with about as close a relationship to the software as I have to the cereal I ate for breakfast this morning. If I'd starved to death, I wouldn't be working right now, but I don't say I eat cereal for money.
- ebiester 12y ago
  This encourages bad products. If the product is created easy to use, there is no reason to buy a book, to require technical support, or require training. Consider an open source photo sharing application. You distribute a system so easy that anyone can set it up. You hire people to do user studies to make the (AGPL) web application just work. The more money you spend making it easy to set up and use, the less money you are able to collect for training, tech support, and books.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    This is something Snowdrift.coop is hoping to help address.

> Please explain why you believe this is true. Maybe because when you give people the right to freely copy, use and redistribute your code it's a bit hard to then ask them to pay for it.

sarciszewski 12y ago

Well, I'm sorry you aren't imaginative enough to design a business model which generates revenue from anything other than controlling the supply and charging admission prices. Some ways to milk $ out of free software include: - Being the de-facto expert in your product (hello sweet 6-7 figure consulting contracts when an Enterprise picks it up) - Training - Tech support (hand-holding) - Publish books about the subject The list goes on. If enough people adopt a free software project, that doesn't preclude the person (or persons) who release it from turning a profit. It just ensures they can't do so at the expense of the liberty of their users.

grimtrigger 12y ago
What if you're a coder who has no interest in any of those things? Many people get into SaaS specifically so they don't have to work with bureaucracies any more. Book publishing can sometimes be alternative, but what if your code is so intuitive and easy to understand that no one needs a book about it? Or what if you're a bad communicator and someone else writes a much better book?
morgante 12y ago
Open Source business models exist, but they are nowhere near lucrative enough to sustain all software developers. Who are you supposed to train or publish books to if every developer is somehow trying to eke out a living in this "open source" world?
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Well, the above is "business models that could support creating a new project" - in principle one can also eke out a living extending and adapting other people's projects for people willing to pay. Indeed, a huge percentage of programmers currently ekeing out a living programming are already effectively doing that, often in situations where things are proprietary only by default (as in, it's license says you can't share it, but if its license said otherwise it still wouldn't be shared because it's too specific to what one particular company is doing).
mgkimsal 12y ago
* Being the de-facto expert in your product For some things this may work, but if someone's going to be investing 6-7 figure consulting contracts, and the code is open and free, they'll eventually replace you with someone else in-house. * Training Isn't a recurring or ongoing stream. * Tech support If you design your product/service well enough, people probably won't need much hand-holding. Or... someone else will take the code and make a better version that doesn't need the hand-holding, and win your potential customers away. * Books Again... not really recurring. Yes, there's ways to make money, but none of these are terribly good business models. Books? Entire massive companies based around books are folding or shrinking. Suggesting that someone's business model be based on books is... weird. And when the code is open, you'll face more potential competition than if the code was closed. ACK - I missed your 'milk' phrase. 'Milking money' just doesn't scream 'solid business model' - it screams out "petty vendor who will nickel and dime me to death".
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  > they'll eventually replace you with someone else in-house Yeah, that's why you don't put all your eggs in the same basket :) > ACK - I missed your 'milk' phrase. 'Milking money' just doesn't scream 'solid business model' - it screams out "petty vendor who will nickel and dime me to death". I view business as inherently evil and selfish. I am choosing to engage in business because I don't care about being good.
  - ehrman 12y ago
    > I view business as inherently evil and selfish. I suggest rebuilding your frame of reference. Offering something of value for a profit is not evil. It may be considered selfish, but it is also selfish to offer something of value for free to gain moral high ground, peer recognition, and resume fodder. Being selfish isn't evil; survival isn't evil. You live in a community that has rules and values, and if you live in the spirit of those rules and values, being selfish isn't causing harm, and in most cases, helps others. When a business bends those rules, or breaks them with no regard for the community, that can be considered unethical and in some cases "immoral" and possibly evil by some definitions. If your business model doesn't take advantage of customers, employees, or the surrounding community, you probably have a good business plan.
teleclimber 12y ago
> I'm sorry you aren't imaginative enough... No need to be condescending. I've actually been researching this a fair bit lately for a new project. What I found was that even though people parrot the revenue models you list above, the reality is that it is far more risky to go open than to "control the supply". The margins on services (consulting, training, support etc..) are much lower than selling the code. Here is one example I came across showing how it's no slam-dunk: http://www.locomotivecms.com/articles/we-tried-to-solve-the-open-source-revenue-equation#.VJ2ga8ACD http://www.locomotivecms.com/articles/we-tried-to-solve-the-...
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  > No need to be condescending. I disagree because this is HN
  - dang 12y ago
    Because this is HN, there is a need not to be condescending. Please re-read the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  I've created closed source software for many years now, and we've happily reduced our costs by incorporating open source software (where the licenses permit). We've also paid for proprietary libraries. I would be surprised to find anybody doing serious development without relying on open source software somewhere. And the companies I've worked for have generally been very willing to release code as open source, partly for goodwill and advertising (we've received several job applicants who only learned about us through our contributions to open source projects), and partly to avoid the cost of maintaining an internal fork of, say, Boost or JQuery. Even if you can't open source the whole kaboodle, it's often possible to release something, especially additions to existing open source projects.
  - 12y ago
paulhauggis 12y ago
Anybody can do what you are mentioning. Competition is fierce and training and tech support aren't scalable for a small shop. You also forgot to mention the culture behind many Foss projects: profit is seen as evil and your project will get forked, the second you try to turn a profit. Foss users expect free support, bug fixing, and software. Part of the entitled generation of internet users. If you want to make a living, proprietary services all the way.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  > Anybody can do what you are mentioning. Yes, that's the point of free software. Everyone can. > Competition is fierce and training and tech support aren't scalable for a small shop. I think you're underestimating the degree to which most of the world outside of IT (and including much of the world inside IT) is too lazy to figure it out and would rather pay money for a black box that solves their problems. > Foss users expect free support, bug fixing, and software. Part of the entitled generation of internet users. Not all of us do. And if your audience is companies, not users, the goals align differently.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    "Yes, that's the point of free software. Everyone can." So by open sourcing my product, I am opening myself up to all sorts of competition. Not a very smart way to run a business. "I think you're underestimating the degree to which most of the world outside of IT (and including much of the world inside IT) is too lazy to figure it out and would rather pay money for a black box that solves their problems." You're right. But if anyone can do it (mentioned above), it will eventually be a race to the bottom (based on cost) when software is equal. "Not all of us do. And if your audience is companies, not users, the goals align differently." I run a business. I wouldn't hire a 1 or 2 person shop for support of an open source project. I have had way too many bad experiences. When you are just starting out, it's hard enough to make money. Why make it even more difficult by increasing competition and doing something that will not scale well? I saw this in one of your other posts: "I view business as inherently evil and selfish. I am choosing to engage in business because I don't care about being good." I wish you would have said this in the first place. I would have not wasted the time responding to you.
chc 12y ago
#1 is being a consultant. #2 is being a teacher. #3 is being a consultant. #4 is being an author. None of these involve making money off the software. They all involve side businesses with about as close a relationship to the software as I have to the cereal I ate for breakfast this morning. If I'd starved to death, I wouldn't be working right now, but I don't say I eat cereal for money.
ebiester 12y ago
This encourages bad products. If the product is created easy to use, there is no reason to buy a book, to require technical support, or require training. Consider an open source photo sharing application. You distribute a system so easy that anyone can set it up. You hire people to do user studies to make the (AGPL) web application just work. The more money you spend making it easy to set up and use, the less money you are able to collect for training, tech support, and books.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  This is something Snowdrift.coop is hoping to help address.