On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Wayne Wilson wrote: > I don't have the URL's handy right now, but you should be > able to find them on any tech news site.
Counterpoint --> Nov. 19, 2003 Businessweek commentary by Russ Roberts "Why Linux Is Wealthier Than Microsoft": http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2003/tc20031119_9737.htm Related Slashdot annotation: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/19/1855252&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=166&tid=185&tid=99 Some comments below: > While this is nothing new, what did suprise me was the > apparent vigor with which the anti-GPL campaign is being waged. Surprising vigor? The final, desperate spasm from a dying company is hardly surprising. > The line now goes that GPL threatens the very foundations of > our western society and our economic prosperity. Just like technological advances in solar power-generation threatens the prosperity of OPEC member nations? "Western society" cannot stop GPL any more than OPEC members can prevent alternative energy research. > This is what various trade groups are starting to present to government > bodies. Great! More GPL awareness will benefit everyone. > One can almost see the AAFP/vendor deal as a partial > response to this campaign. No, I don't see it that way at all. AAFP/Kibbe failed - they can try to blame their failure on open source all they want. > It's not really going to be about whether GPL (or FOSS in general, as > most people won't be able to make a distinction) After the intense lobbying by the "various trade groups", this lack of understanding will soon disappear. And - this is a "Good Thing". > software is good enough or supported enough - that's just a thin shell > of an excuse to not discuss the real issues at stake. Free software via GPL has and will continue to deliver better software and support. On this basis and this basis alone, Free software will add value to our economy and confer competitive advantage to those who choose to adopt it. > What's at stake is the business model. No, what is at stake is the survival of individuals and organizations (e.g. Microsoft, United States) that either choose to adopt open source / Free software methods or fight it. > ON the one hand, what companies want is on-going service revenue, on the > other hand, they also want up-front capital revenue. Revenue is not the issue at all. The difference between open source and closed source is relationship. We operate in a competitive economy; our choice of software licence does not change that. > FOSS really forgoes the latter. This is a too narrow and erroneous view. I receive upfront payment from open source products all the time. > And in the process, it forgoes most chances of a company reducing > customer churn via either high capitalization or lock-in. This is an unfortunate view of how a "company" retains customers. Companies that continue to choose to operate in this way may be replaced by companies that operate via a different kind of relationship with its customers. > IN a service business, customer churn is your worst enemy and if you > only have the quality of your service to protect you, you really can't > take your eye off the customer. So, why would that be a "Bad" thing? Businesses that can deliver better service for less fee will replace those that cannot. That's economics 101. As I said earlier, Free software success does not require a different economics system or theory. We are in a competitive market place - and Free software is a "natural" consequence of market forces. > Then let's assume that service can become commoditized. At > that point, there really is little that one can do to > preserve service revenues. They will start declining. Assuming that "production costs" delines as technologies improve and mature, the price of goods (including services) will diminish. Again, economics 101 - where is the shocker here? > I think we are just beginning to see the possible shape of the software > industry if current trends continue. And it doesn't look good for > anyone trying to sell and support software in the Western world. I beg to differ. Greater production efficiency only dooms those who choose to _not adopt_ the new production methods. Looking at IBM as an example, they "Got it" and now benefit from adopting open source methods. It will look increasingly bad for individuals and organizations that turn their back on open source. They should learn from Henry Ford's competitors who were too slow to embrace the assembly line production technology. :-) > Outsourcing of programming and support talent to the rapidly developing > world will happen whether the software is FOSS or not. So, what is your point here? Globalization is another trend - which is off-topic for the GPL discussion. > I think it's these economic realities that are creating the drive for > companies as diverse as Apple, Microsoft, SUN and SCO (just to name a > few) to make as much revenue as possible now off of software > intelluctual property, because the creation of new IP is going to be far > less expensive (and thus it can sell for less) than existing IP! IP producers will always want to get the maximum price for their product. However, the actual market price is determined by supply and demand - again, economics 101. Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org
