

Modern Thoughts on Open Source - artagnon
http://artagnon.com/2010/01/modern-thoughts-on-open-source/

======
glymor
_[Apple] realized that keeping WebKit closed and exclusively pumping money
into it was pointless. So they opened it out..._

Webkit started as a fork of KHTML (part of KDE and LGPL licenced) their
mishandling of it is a good example of how not to work with open source.

Andriod is another. As Google isn't developing it in public they're carrying
the full cost. And their re-creating of userland libraries to avoid the LGPL
is pretty much the opposite of your argument (though possibly inherited from
before Google bought Android).

Aside from your examples I agree with your point. It's similar to one Doctorow
makes in Makers that everything turns into a commodity after a few years and
it doesn't make you money anymore. However it can still act as a barrier of
entry so examples like Chadaustin's can still make sense if maintenance costs
don't dominate.

~~~
artagnon
Thanks! I've updated the article now :)

~~~
glymor
Chrome OS might be a better example of a project created to commodify. No-one
sells a browser but Microsoft still makes a lot of money selling desktop OS's.
Unlike Android they don't seem to have any market goals for themselves.

Ironically Chrome OS is Ubuntu (and Chrome is based on Webkit) so they are
also examples where commodification has already happened.

------
simonw
_The problem with the pure service model is that only RedHat and a few other
companies have been successful at it. The argument “I created it, so I can
service it best” doesn’t hold anymore- too many people have technical
expertise in open source software. So unless your service is the cheapest and
the best, it’ll be killed off by other service providers._

I've seen this claim quite a few times ("the service model only works for Red
Hat") - is it actually true though?

Sure, there aren't that many billion dollar companies built around services,
but I've seen dozens of smaller lifestyle businesses built around consulting
against open source projects.

Off the top of my head...

Hwaci for SQLite: <http://www.sqlite.org/support.html>

Dozens of companies for PostgreSQL:
<http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support>

Revolution Systems for Django: <http://www.revsys.com/services/django/>

Spring Source for Spring: <http://www.springsource.com/>

Lucid Imagination for Solr/Lucene: <http://www.lucidimagination.com/>

Lemur Consulting for Xapian: <http://www.lemurconsulting.com/>

Then there's the fact that a bunch of the current NoSQL efforts (MongoDB for
example) are getting funding, which suggests investors still believe you can
build a business around open source support.

~~~
artagnon
Agreed. Many of the examples you've cited seem to be niche/ boutique
companies. I suppose there aren't too many organizations the size of RedHat
relying on the pure-service model.

------
chadaustin
Thank you! I'm convinced the AAA video game industry of the 90s and 00s
crippled itself by religiously opposing most open source. This forced every
company to write its own graphics engines, physics engines, and foundational
platform libraries.

At the local, per-company level, these anti-open-source policies may have made
sense. However, they had some global effects:

* the industry wasted tons of money reinventing solutions to solved problems.

* to start a AAA game studio, you must license or invent graphics, physics, threading, etc., too expensive for long-tail innovation.

By leveraging and encouraging open source, you can lift all boats, improving
the world in which we compete.

In short, on my deathbed, leveraged open source means a lot more than closed
source would.

~~~
wendroid
Surely most companies licensed Id, Unreal or Duke engines or used the ones
supplied by Sony / Xbox.

Early Id, Unreal & Duke Nukem 3d are all OSS now.

~~~
mortehu
I have developed games professionally for both PlayStation and Xbox, but
haven't heard of these engines supplied by Sony/Microsoft you are talking
about. Are you sure they exist?

By the way, the other engines you mentioned are all geared towards first-
person shooters.

~~~
wendroid
ehe no I'm not sure, I thought PlayStation came with an engine.

