
How to Compete Against Open Source Competition - gthank
http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2009/08/11/how-to-compete-against-open-source-competition/
======
rbanffy
I really hate when people use that line:

"Open source software is free if your time is worth nothing."

It sadly misses the point, often on purpose, that "free" in "free speech" is
not the same "free" that goes in "free beer".

By using free software you take control of your technology. Maybe that's not a
priority for you - and you can live with all your company communications
living, say, inside a Notes or Exchange server - but it is important to so
many companies it becomes a relevant economic pressure.

So, when you decide to go proprietary, stay aware you are letting another
company decide the fate of your data. That decision will have a deep impact on
how you conduct business for a long time.

BTW, the 90's called. They want their "complete lack of drivers" argument
back.

~~~
_pi
If anything has a complete lack of drivers, it's OS X or default rolled
Windows. Linux supports more drivers in terms of legacy and current hardware
out of the box, unlike Vista and XP which culled legacy hardware support, and
don't have as many drivers as linux in terms of out of the box support.

So I must agree it's a horrible argument.

>"Open source software is free if your time is worth nothing."

While I agree with your original point, that it's the freedom in terms of
control. This argument is completely invalid because it's like saying "Windows
sucks because 4 year olds can't administer it effectively thus it takes
longer". If you're going into OSS you need OSS specialized and trained staff,
someone who has only worked with Windows Server isn't going to be able to
effectively manage OSS, OSes because it's obviously logically different.
(Difference is if they've used a commercial UNIX which is quite close to Linux
you just have to modify some habits and learn package management for your
distro).

In short the problem is the lack of preparation that goes into going Open
Source in a company, such as getting the IT staff familiar enough with the
tech.

Example of Windows vs. Linux -- _Setting up FTP, allowing user logins
disabling anon. (Using CentOS as distro)_

CentOS:

    
    
      yum groupinstall "FTP Server"
      vi /etc/vsftp/vsftpd.conf
      
      anonymous_enable = no
      local_enable = yes
    
      chkconfig vsftpd 345
      service vsftpd on
    

Windows:

    
    
      Open Server Role Manager
      Go Through Server Role Wizard to Select FTP server role
      Go into IIS options.
      Go through multiple prompts, properties screens and wizards to finally enable local login and disable anonymous.
    

In short:

I can remember every step of the install on Linux, on Windows I have to be
looking at the damn screen. Yet I've spent as many years on Windows Server as
on Linux. However because I know exactly what commands on the commandline do
and it's an easier interface to remember off the top of my head than a GUI, I
can do it faster IF (very big if) I have all the knowledge I need.

Not only that but the "vendor lock in" is so inherent to Windows, people don't
realize their core data (how their server is set up) is almost impossible to
get at and export without the use of _third-party_ full backup tools. Unlike
Linux in Windows I can't clone /etc/ or some parts of /etc and stick it on a
different server running the same version of the OS and expect it to be a drop
in replacement.

------
jsonscripter
_I’ve used mainstream image editors like Photoshop, Paint.NET and Gimp; some
of my best friends are mainstream image editors. And when I saw Gimp I almost
went blind. Children were weeping; fruit was bruising. The UI could kill small
animals._

Really? Did you really have to say it that way? I use the Gimp every day, and
it's quite good in my opinion. It does what I tell it to, and not what I
"mean". Photoshop does what you "mean", as defined by Adobe. As an example why
that's wrong, something like "I'll interpolate this scaled bitmap linearly,
thanks" is frequently the wrong solution, but happens anyway when you scale a
section of an image.

Now I know this article isn't about the Gimp, but when someone wants to spark
a flamewar by claiming the user interface to the Gimp causes him "to go
blind", it really discredits his other claims nearly instantly.

~~~
gdp
Why would an irrelevant over-statement discredit the other points? It's a
literary device. I'm sure you could mentally replace comments about going
blind with "I do not like the user interface of Gimp".

I mean is it really necessary to take it quite so literally? Jumping up and
down about deliberate hyperbole and then arguing that it invalidates anything
else written in close proximity makes it seem like you probably just stopped
reading at that point and didn't evaluate the actual claims made.

~~~
billswift
Hyperbole, like exaggeration, is a euphemism for a lie; it is a common and
socially accepted lie, but it is still a lie. If you catch someone lying about
something, wouldn't you worry about whether he was lying about something else
that you were less informed about? I admit neurotypicals don't seem to care
much about lying, probably because you can't seem to help yourselves, but some
of us do care.

~~~
nollidge
So if I said to you that my laptop "weighs a ton", it will diminish my
credibility with you simply because its mass is not literally 2000 pounds?
That seems rather cynical, or at least uncharitable.

------
gdp
There's an easier way to compete against Open Source competition:

Licensing and software patents!

Put simply, you can afford to license some proprietary format from a
complimentary product that people use (ensuring that it is one of sufficient
complexity such that will take months to reverse engineer).

Make your software compatible with any number of other proprietary software
packages, using these proprietary formats and protocols that open source
developers will never have access to without expending huge amounts of time
and energy. Then, to _really_ firm up your market share, be sure to invent
some more proprietary formats and protocols that future developers can use to
integrate with your product. Be sure to share your technology for free with
other complimentary products so that you can claim that it's a "standard".
Then, encumber your proprietary "standards" with the sorts of licensing or NDA
requirements that put them beyond the reach of open source projects.

I'm not even being totally sarcastic here. If your entire business model is
dependent on being able to compete with open source, then I think utilising
all the hard work that previous companies have put into achieving vendor lock-
in is more worthwhile than a good installation process, a marketing budget, or
having more features than the other guy.

~~~
_pi
Thank you Microsoft.

------
rythie
You can only save people time if they are short of it and can spend money
easily.

Hobbyists and big companies have lots of time and are reluctant to spend
money.

Sell to small businesses who don't have in house expertise.

~~~
billswift
The largest private company in the world, Walmart, uses Microsoft software
from their servers down to CE on their Telxons. I suspect you are confusing
primarily IT companies with companies more generally.

~~~
RK
Wal-Mart is a public corporation.

------
jasonkester
Spot on. S3stat pays my rent, even though I link straight from the site to a
set of detailed instructions to roll your own version of the service.

If you have a dozen hours to follow those instructions, debug and get it up
and running as a scheduled task on one of your servers, you can get it for
"free". Or you can pay me $5/month to do it for you.

Assuming you'll use the end result for one year, your break-even point comes
when you value your time at about $5/hr. If you think you're worth less than
that, you'll do it yourself. If you think you're worth more, you'll buy it.

People with more money than time will happily trade one for the other.

~~~
kirubakaran
S3Stat looks cool and I myself might be using that in the future. However,
usually it is not simply time vs money as you say. Using prepackaged software
is a dead end. You can't do anything further with it. You usually don't learn
anything that will give you an idea for doing something else. It may be just a
time vs money trade-off for non-developers but the equation is different for
developers. Fun and learning opportunities come into play.

------
rythie
[reposting my comment from the blog it's self]

The problem is, if you want to sell your software to large user base then the
per-user costs become prohibitive.

For example, say the Open Source product takes 100 hours to setup (which is
generous) which is $5,500 and server costs are $4500/year = $10,000

You have a hosting product that requires no set and no server the subscription
is $36/user so…

10 users = $360 (big win)

100 users = $3,600 (small win)

1,000 users = $36,000 (oh dear)

and it’s not unusual to have 10,000 users ($360,000)

You’d think that companies would get the problems with this model, but at
least one company doesn’t: <https://www.yammer.com/about/pricing>

~~~
Retric
_Enterprises with over 1000 employees can contact us for discount pricing._

It's on the page you linked. I would suggest you look at MS for a better
pricing model. Their Enterprise software costs more but you can get a huge
bulk discount. Want to save money just buy more. The idea is to start working
with a large company and then keep up selling them more stuff.

~~~
rythie
Yeah good point, however selling to a large organisation is difficult when
your a small startup because decisions take a long time and often require you
to meet them, submit proposals etc. Even then there is a very good chance they
will turn around and say no, and not pay anything and go with a competitor.

------
baran
Although I see the point of the assessment, the author fails to understand the
change in culture with the newer generations. Especially in software where
familiarity is the major driving force in the products which are used. I would
much rather use a software package that I have been using all through college
and grad school even if a commercial package may be better. It all boils down
to familiarity.

Also members of the newer generation respect what open-source stands for. We
realize the benefit to society. We want to drive change and innovation
especially if it is free and open.

Then comes the question well how do you beat the open-source? Well, I dont
think you can. You have to embrace the technology and build upon it. Use it as
a platform for further development. Only when companies begin to embrace the
open-source will they begin to be successful.

------
indiejade
Here, allow me translate this article: "blah, blah, blah"

Anyone with half a brain who has ever had to wade through the "documentation"
for certain kinds of proprietary software can probably agree that a lot of it
is simply pointless and redundant. Case in point: Great Plains by Microsoft.
That is like, ERP hell.

Anyway, the only actual way to compete against open-source competition is to
stop thinking your own time is so much more valuable than everybody else's.

------
flooha
[from my comment on the site]

"...there goes two hours of my day searching, configuring and installing
dependencies."

This is the sole reason for building Flooha.com. No average person should have
to do this kind of thing just to use some website software. We’re in beta and
it’s not perfect yet, but we hope to make life a lot easier for thousands of
people who don’t want to fight with their software.

~~~
gdp
I can't say "dependencies" have ever been particularly high on my list of
software gripes. At least not since package managers and repositories matured
to the point (at least 5 years ago) where 99% of my dependency installation is
either done automatically or is available to me mostly-automatically within a
few keystrokes.

~~~
flooha
I extrapolated his statement to include things like software addons. Even an
experienced web developer gets annoyed by searching, downloading, uploading,
configuring permissions etc... It's very similar to what he's griping about.

Yes, mature apps like WordPress have a built in plugin installer, but have you
ever worked with software like MediaWiki or osCommerce? Installing
"extensions" or "contributions" (what we just call addons) can make you crazy.
Open this file, find this code, replace it with this or past this after it,
rinse and repeat dozens of times. uggh

~~~
gdp
And how many times do you do that in a lifetime?

I've been a commercial programmer for about 10 years now, and in that time I
still don't think I've spent even a fraction of the time I've spent dealing
with other, considerably more irritating issues in software. My dealings with
MediaWiki and osCommerce (and what you seem to be describing) usually involve
following half a page of instructions in the order they are written, without a
lot of thought or effort being required.

But hey, I could be wrong. Perhaps there are people out there that really hate
following step-by-step instructions.

~~~
flooha
"Perhaps there are people out there that really hate following step-by-step
instructions."

Yep, they're called "users". They aren't programmers and don't want to be.
They just want something to work. I'm surprised a programmer would rather
waste time on trivial tasks than to just click a few buttons.

"And how many times do you do that in a lifetime?"

If you are someone who is trying to build a real website and trying different
things, you do it a lot.

"...I still don't think I've spent even a fraction of the time I've spent
dealing with other, considerably more irritating issues in software."

It really depends on exactly what you're doing, but since programming is your
profession, of course you will deal with a lot of other issues. We're just
trying to save people time and money.

~~~
gdp
I was just suggesting that "users", even those who aren't particularly
technically-inclined, are more than capable of following step-by-step
instructions, given that the only requirement is generally knowing how to get
things onto a web server, how to copy-and-paste, and how to edit a file.

But I wish you the best of luck if your users are happy. Perhaps I'm just
getting cynical :)

------
chanux
A must read for open source developers.

------
onreact-com
Or just open source your software and sell services to those that want to save
time :-)

~~~
trapper
That hasn't worked well for too many people. Most OS businesses that haven't
failed tend to dual license, and cripple the
installation/documentation(technical or product) in some way for the OS
version.

~~~
jhancock
Yesterday's VMware acquisition of SpringSource suggests there is a very
lucrative market.

~~~
trapper
Case in point though: spring source had "community" builds + special builds
for customers, and the community builds + documentation were crippled
somewhat. I know a lot of commercial open source users (who weren't paying)
were disappointed by some of their actions.

~~~
jhancock
I wasn't disagreeing with you that that is what they are doing. My point is
that it has been successful.

