I liken the software industry to the art world. Microsoft is like starving artist companies that hire artist to pump out piece after piece of mediocre art for sale. Open source is like independent artist with a love of the doing and getting paid is secondary. You find in the art world that every artist is shocked after painting many pictures when someone suddenly want to pay them money for one. In other words they didn't start painting to sell, they started painting for the love and recognition. This is true for most open source applications I think.
The revenue difference in open source versa proprietary software models is simply a matter of time. Proprietary software is a return on investment approach charged when the software is "rented" where open source is a support-funded approach. This approach model is based on value-added business model. Will Lowe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dustin Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <General@brlug.net> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [brlug-general] free, closed and practical software. > At 02:15 PM 7/4/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >>Your comment about software companies making money by "implementing it > >>for people" brings up a good point. I don't think that a model based on > >>developers doing nothing but contract work is going to work, either for > >>them or the consumer. > >>Let's say I am a potential client and I need some software. A word > >>processor would be a good example of this. So I get an open source > >>developer and contract them to build the software. Under this model the > >>client bears the entire cost of the development because the cost cannot > >>be spread across other clients (this is how mass-market commercial > >>software works). > >>How do we make this kind of model affordable to the client? > > > >If there is a mass market for the software, it will be open sourced. e.g. > >word processor look at Open Office, KOffice, Abiword, Hancom Office etc > > Why? Let's say a large group of consumers want a certain kind of software. > There is no guarantee that a skilled programmer or group of programmers > will decide to implement that software just because they want to. In this > case someone somewhere will need to contract out to a programmer to develop > the software. If the software has a large potential market then it would be > better economically to spread that cost out. > > How can we do that? > > >If the software is singular to certain profitable markets, it might not be > >open sourced. e.g. point of sale, legal document production system > >integrated with document management system, etc > > > >If an open source programmer doesn't have a need for it why would he > >create the program OR if he thinks he can make money from it, why would he > >open source it?? I know we want to be idealist here, but reality sets in > >at the profit line. We are all human. Look at the open source antivirus > >programs available: Clam. Why so little? Open source programmers don't > >have much need for it AND if they produce it they can make money off it > >(e.g. RAV). There are only so many M$ haters and/or Linonuts out there who > >are willing to create open source software into a profitable market. > > Don't misinterpret my argument. I am not arguing for or against closed or > open source. I am simply asking a question based on Will's remarks. :) > > > --- > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Puryear Information Technology <http://www.puryear-it.com> > Providing expertise in the management, integration, and > security of Windows and UNIX systems, networks, and applications. > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > General@brlug.net > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
