Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 257 posts

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#101

Post by julianlam »

rglover wrote: post #100

Open source works if you: - Treat your OSS projects like MARKETING tools, not revenue streams. - Offer a freemium version of what you produce (e.g., offering a "Pro" version that's well-maintained and adds valuable features). - Back your projects with services (e.g., consulting, fast support, "off the shelf" implementations, enterprise workshops, etc.). - Back your projects with paid support. - Scale your performance…

Indeed, that is NodeBB's business model (and the same model as many other forum software companies, come to think of it).

We provide fast support to anyone that wants it, and peace of mind to companies that utilise our product. We are, in essence, domain knowledge as a service.

Many people have tried to undercut us, which is a great way of keeping us honest, but there's nothing quite like getting support from the guys who wrote the software :)

My only regret is that I cannot support everyone who wants to use NodeBB, for a price point accessible to all.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#102

Post by ryanisnan »

dest wrote: post #66
talkingtab wrote: post #62

It is a good read, with good insights. The conclusion - "This tradeoff is inescapable" is true only to the extent that a new model for open source does not arise. Stepping back a couple thousand feet, open source is an amazing thing - a bunch of people alone or in collaboration, building great things which other people then use to build other ... etc. If we can find a way to sustain this it would be great. It is to m…

Isn't it what GPL is about? Forcing users to follow the rules of the club?

It makes sense why orgs choose not to use GPL software, though. For those reliant on proprietary tech, it's a loose thread in a knit sweater.

I worry that backing orgs like MongoDB are being punished by their position, to the extent that their ability to operate will cease, which will hurt that project potentially.

So in essence, GPL has a problem, whether or not it is the problem.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#103

Post by zzzcpan »

avar wrote: post #20

> It is hard to imagine [AWS, Microsoft, and Google] ever paying for open source software. It's surprising that someone setting out to write about the changing economies of open source ends up missing the point so thoroughly. These companies are some of the biggest contributors to open source. What they aren't likely to want to pay for is a site license from some company trying to sell them a MongoDB under terms prac…

> These companies are some of the biggest contributors to open source.

It depends how you look at it. Take Kubernetes for example, Google open sources it, but there is a caveat, it's not really useful without all the necessary complementary services, that Google happens to offer you. Or take Android, exactly the same problem. Sure, there are some things they truly contribute to open source, but even among them a lot are not necessarily useful outside of those companies and are contributed purely to reduce costs or worse, to gain control. All of this is very different from Redis contribution for example. They never do things like that.

> What they aren't likely to want to pay for is a site license from some company trying to sell them a MongoDB under terms practically identical to what Oracle does for Oracle DB.

You are missing the point. MongoDB never wanted to sell a license to Amazon or to anyone trying to compete with their own hosted offering. Same goes for any company trying to make money through SaaS. So it's not just unlikely, it's by design. And Amazon making their own implementation is expected outcome of this. Although I suspect no one is going to repeat MongoDB's mistake and release client libraries under permissive licenses after that. Next time Amazon tries to reimplement something, it won't be as drop in of a replacement, as it is now.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#104

Post by dspillett »

bpicolo wrote: post #81
zozbot123 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO, that is better than money IMO, it's not. SF developer time is hella expensive, and OSS projects can hire developers on their own, somewhere cheaper. Where a software company can help OSS cheaply and effectively is by providing support for interoperability with their own business area, and by relicensing their existing , non-core-business IP under favorable terms.

> OSS projects can hire developers on their own, somewhere cheaper A lot of the bigger OSS projects require an expertise you're not going to find outside of megacorps, because they have internal scale/process problems/otherwise that necessitate interesting problem solving

Also large companies often value creating documentation and other "admin" much more than individual developers - individual developers appreciate this admin work having happened but often detest doing it themselves, where for a decent company the value of a smooth skills transfer process is more obvious and baked into the culture.

This is far from always the case, of course, but projects that get a lot of input from commercial entities often have documentation that is more complete and (more importantly) more accurate/up-to-date than those that don't.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#105

Post by pjc50 »

dstroot wrote: post #98
pjc50 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long period of time I regarded Oracle as absolutely undeserving owners of the JDK; they didn't write it, it was bought from Sun, they shipped adware in the installer, tried to sue Android out of existence, and were poor stewards of the language.

You wrote in the past tense. Did something change your view?

I lost track of the detail and am vaguely aware of a Java renaissance, but not clear whether that's real or whether Oracle are responsible or whether it's Clojure. So now I don't know whether I have reasons to hate Oracle. But I keep a little resentment warm just in case.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#106

Post by dspillett »

marcinzm wrote: post #92
donatj wrote: post #11

Honestly at this point I would rather use Closed Source software than Open Source that isn’t “Free as in Speech”. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. At least closed source is honest about its intentions. I use Free Software not because the price, but rather so I can be Free. So I can know I am free to use software I develop with it in whatever way I want. I find the push to market open source by limiting it’s use one o…

MongoDB's new license does not in any way prevent you from using MongoDB in whatever way you want. It simply requires you to, in some cases, release the changes you make to it publicly. You know, like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement.

>* like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement*

Unless you use AGPL where the trigger for releasing your modifications is making the change available by any means (direct or otherwise) rather than with the standard GPL where the trigger is distribution of outputs compiled from the modified version.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#107

Post by alittletooraph »

pjc50 wrote: post #14

Two comments: Firstly, the discussion at the front about the music industry is quite insightful, but I'd go further - they didn't want to sell convenience at first. Used to the physical embodiment of recordings rather than the de-materialized reality of digital music, they spent years working on mandated inconvenience through DRM and other legal actions. Always remember that if the music industry had won unopposed yo…

> It's just that there's no intrinsic reason that the same company that gives away labour as OSS should also make the best complements to that OSS.

AWS's version will likely always lag on features, whether it's their Elasticsearch service or this new DocumentDB thing. So to continue the music industry analogy from the original article, sure Taylor Swift may or may not be able run the most reliable streaming service but she'll still get business if Spotify/Pandora only has covers of her songs.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#108

Post by marcinzm »

dspillett wrote: post #106
marcinzm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MongoDB's new license does not in any way prevent you from using MongoDB in whatever way you want. It simply requires you to, in some cases, release the changes you make to it publicly. You know, like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement.

>* like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement* Unless you use AGPL where the trigger for releasing your modifications is making the change available by any means (direct or otherwise) rather than with the standard GPL where the trigger is distribution of outputs compiled from the modified version.

MongoDB did use the AGPL and still had issues with companies trying to argue they didn't need to release their changes. So they switched to their own license which was even more explicit on the matter.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#109

Post by kgwxd »

mynegation wrote: post #99
kgwxd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit for what?

For “commoditize your complements” strategy, which was probably popularized by Stratechery but GP found earlier piece by Joel Spolsky about the same idea.

So credit for a phrase? Neither invented the actual strategy.

Re: AWS, MongoDB, and the Economic Realities of Open Source

#110

Post by aquaticsunset »

cpitman wrote: post #71
cat199 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the dream of a megacap open source company is dead https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/RHT/ Market Cap 31.055B S&P 500 Component Or does this exemplify your point w/r/t RH for-fee bolt-on addons?

Red Hat does not have any "for-fee bolt-on addons", everything we ship is open source (or will be soon after acquisition of a closed-source company). Responding to some of the other comments, Red Hat revenue is nearly all from providing enterprise support for completely open source software. This is critically different from "services", ie consulting. These are yearly contracts that provide clients insurance if/when…

To say "everything" Red Hat ships being open source isn't quite true. There's a lot of proprietary code floating around, especially in the supporting infrastructure. When a product is put together, the upstream sources are bundled together and released - often behind the paywall.

Paul Cormier has it right - "We're an enterprise software company with an open source development model". Not an open source company.

However, you're correct. Red Hat's value prop is in top notch support.

Post reply on HN