Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

ianbicking.org

131–140 of 454 posts

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#131
post #86

Its commoditized the cost to use software to near zero which has created a lot of unprecedented value and products that wouldn't be possible before OSS. Unfortunately most of the wealth created by OSS is being reaped by the large cloud vendors because relatively no-one pays for OSS but they do to host their production systems on it, atm this revenue goes directly to the major tech cloud companies which are using it t…

> Unfortunately most of the wealth created by OSS is being reaped by the large cloud vendors Why is that unfortunate? It has enabled a cycle of OSS to user AND OSS to vendor to vendor enrichment to user...since you can always modify the code at will. The best of both worlds, until you get into that special "extension" problem that GPL3 tried to lock down.

Because none of the Indie OSS developers that have donated their free time and energy into creating it will be rewarded with any of the value they've created from their efforts.

Because there will only ever be 3 major multi-billion tech companies that stand to benefit most from OSS.

Because they own their markets, where they can wait to find out what OSS software has become successful and either just profit from it by hosting it directly or invest the paid resources into replicating it - an opportunity and reward not available to anyone else that doesn't have a large cloud market share.

Because they're using their profits (made possible from hosting other's OSS investments) to finance their own OSS investments which will have infinite paid and support resources that Indie OSS developers will be unable to compete against, eventually leading to building a brand where there'll be customers that will only use OSS by the cloud vendors first, since they're commercially backed and dependable.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lock in is far more complete than it ever was in the Microsoft era, with Microsoft of the 90s, you could mostly still choose to just stop buying their crap, and stick with what you had while you migrate, or work out an alternative. The minute you stop paying a cloud vendor, your entire infrastructure vanishes in a cloud of smoke, and if you relied on their "value add" proprietary services, you are left with basic…

schadenfreude for all! Everyone hated Microsoft for selling software. Everyone hated Microsoft for requiring the world value software monetarily. The world thought programmers were just a bunch of nerds to be taken advantage of. Microsoft said no. The nerds hated microsoft for making them pay for an operating system. The nerds got their way. They got free everything. And now the OSS worls is a convoluted mess. It cos…

What? You downvote because it wasn't obvious to you?

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#133
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be restricted to livecoding. What about authors of the software you use answer to your questions? Well, to be creative, how much would you pay to watch Stallman dance for you?

He dances for free: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t96m2ynKw0 I'd pay to watch him not sing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw

In my book the main part of the 'virtual gifts' experience is in 'for you'.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#134

I'm currently experimenting with this directly. Specifically trying to make Open Source sustainable but for a consumer project. I think Open Source really works for infrastructure projects and it's possible to do really well either working on a system like Kubernetes or Elasticsearch. Not so well for projects that are more focused on consumers. My app, Polar, is focused more on consumers and is an app for people to m…

How are you soliciting code contributions? Do you have a strategy?

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it all makes sense, regarding "Right now the app will prompt you to upgrade once you hit a threshold." Is there somewhere you advertise what the threshold is and how much you'll be charged? I didn't see it on the site. That's the first thing I'd look for when evaluating a product like this, answering what's it going to cost me if I like it? (Not to mention it's comforting for me to know the owners have a plan for…

Not yet but it's mostly because we're iterating and trying to figure out what will work. For example, I'm considering not charging at all, and instead charging just for private teams - at least in the future. That's a feature we haven't shipped yet. Like I said, my main goal right now is to get us to 30-50% month over month growth and then trying to get us to at least 30k users. Until then monetization is irrational…

Got it makes sense, thanks for explaining. Good luck!

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#136

> You can’t make a living making music. Or art. You can’t even make a living taking care of children. First, this isn't true. Plenty of people make a living doing each of the above. (Art is somewhat of a special case, because some will say that what you're doing isn't art by definition if it's attached to some functional purpose like a business model. But you don't have to listen to those people.) Second, these thing…

I think a more apt description would be "You can't PLAN to make a living making music". Certainly, lots of people successfully make a living with music, arts, sports, etc. However, there's a lot out of the individual's control in those fields.

I disagree there, too. Attempting to make money makes you a business. As a business, your fate is in your hands. You're the one making the decisions.

If you decide that the path you want to take in the business of music is to give control to record labels because all the business-y marketing production stuff isn't fun for you, that's your decision. You don't have to do it that way.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#137
post #118
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mostly right, but I don't think the major cloud providers have much of an uncrossable moat. Cloud services are and will continue to become more and more commoditized. Sure, there is proprietary lock-in. But because of OSS, it is also becoming easy to avoid the lock-in. For example, rather than use a hosted elastic service, I was able to launch an elastic stack on k8s in less than an hour of configurat…

Once you have your production systems running on a cloud vendor it becomes increasingly difficult to move off it regardless if you're only using OSS components, there's an inherent risk with every migration that grows the more services you use and years you host on it that needs to be offset with any migration and given the major cloud vendors are comparatively priced, there's little incentive to invest their time an…

...but that is generally regarded to be economically irresponsible in itself preventing you from leveraging the best features available in each cloud.

This is only true as long as the costs of maintaining a cloud provider abstraction layer are greater than the costs of being locked in to a single vendor. I believe that some businesses, once they are armed with an abstraction toolkit like this, will be able to employ arbitrage between the cloud vendors for themselves, and sell that toolkit to other companies who want the same kind of freedom.

And then somebody creates a free software alternative, and will maintain it and keep it up to date.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#138

I wonder what would happen if someone started an open source software "vendor" run along the lines of public radio / podcasts. Open source licensed (using a regular GPL or other license, nothing new or tricky), but a prominent encouragement to donate it you find it useful. Those donations could then be used to hire full-time developers, and work on the kinds of software that is currently not well served by open-sourc…

>TurboTax replacements I know this is only for Canada and most likely for personal tax filing only, but simple tax is amazing. It's pay what you want and is developed by a team of 6 people. https://simpletax.ca

Not open-source, but there are free as in beer federal tax products in the U.S.

I used to work at taxhawk.com (also owns freetaxusa.com). They make their money on premium support, amended filings, and state returns.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#139
Very relevant is this old post by Joel Spolsky on tech companies using free and open source software to commoditize their complements. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

Basically, you can increase the demand for a product by decreasing the cost of it's complements. You can increase the demand for managed Redis services by investing in making Redis better. The caveat is that you can't control where that demand goes and you might end up helping out your competitors more than yourself.

Re: Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

#140
post #87

I think it was designed to make money: sell the actual software. RMS used to sell free copies of Emacs: for 100 bucks, you'd get Emacs, the source code, the documentation, and the necessary scripts to compile it. This was always part of the definition of free software, which open source inherited. It's just that selling like this is more difficult now that there's a high-speed internet for everyone, but I think more…

Well said. I can't find the blog post, but patio11 once talked about how all you have to do is ask for people to pay you and you'll be surprised how many will.

Also, most businesses have no budget for donations but they have plenty of budget for software purchases.

Post reply on HN