The developer can create an ecosystem of services that leverage network externalities and tie into the no-code framework. Of course, they’d have competitors. However, there are network externalities both with the no-code framework itself and some of the services that tie into it. If you launch an open-source no-code framework simultaneously with your own ecosystem of services, then you will profit from those services as the first-mover.
Remember, non-engineers are more sensitive to ease of use. They aren’t as fickle as engineers are with dev tools. That’s why they pay money for Microsoft Word and stick with it even though there are many free competitors. They’re accustomed to Microsoft Word, their friends use Microsoft Word, and the software is always marginally better because outsized profits are reinvested into the software.
Additionally, if the above is not enough to make one obscenely wealthy, consider this: it is not pre-ordained that no-code would be as open as a programming language like Python. In fact, it might be better for the users if no-code is a platform rather than an open-source framework (I don’t believe that, but maybe). Obviously, platforms can charge rents as the intermediary between end-users and suppliers of services on the platform. That will make you fabulously wealthy, assuming widespread adoption.
So, if there is a lack of:
- profit potential from ancillary services, and
- funding from users, suppliers, and patrons
- or, in any case, if the no-code would be fundamentally worse with open source
then a for-profit platform is the way to go. Personally, I believe that the open source + ancillary services route will result in a better ecosystem. Nonetheless, it’s worth investigating which of those three clauses are true (if any) and why, because that will have big implications for the no-code project.