Live data from Hacker News

I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

linkedin.com

131–140 of 179 posts

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#131
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally have been being using Intellij for everything for the last five years. I tried to migrate to VSCode for golang. I mean, don't get me wrong, the situation is not the worst possible, but the only reason you would want to use that is because you never tried refactoring with Goland. Are you kidding me? I had to go look for what is the current needed extensions for go that are still maintained, configure them…

The best IDE is in my head. I don't need to type anything and it can even run buggy code without any error.

I want the computer to do as much work as it possibly can. My brain only runs at 0.0000001 GHz because it’s made of meat.

But I want to use a concise, powerful language that requires more work from the compiler, rather than an impoverished language that assumes an IDE will generate a lot of crud that isn’t worth reviewing.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#132
post #90

The author makes a good case against open source businesses, but he indulges himself in a false dichotomy between a traditional proprietary model and open source. Increasingly often, there is no market for your proprietary software. It is then not a choice between open source and proprietary models, but rather between doing open source or doing nothing. A lot of markets are just gone , and they're not coming back. Od…

> The author makes a good case against open source businesses, but he indulges himself in a false dichotomy between a traditional proprietary model and open source.

More generally people seem to get tunnel vision about open source models. The big distinction in business software is not open vs. proprietary but SaaS vs. non-SaaS, with SaaS increasingly dominant. OSS companies therefore need to have a SaaS strategy. You build your own on community OSS projects, supply other SaaS businesses, or use OSS as an on-ramp to your SaaS product.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#133
post #67
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter argument: the Linux kernel. (Since we are mentioning open source projects with the highest profile on earth, I don't think neither of the examples are fair)

I agree, the Linux kernel is one of the examples where the GPL really works, because a lot of companies really need it for their products, and they need to distribute it, and there are very few alternatives.

> there are very few alternatives

QNX, WxWorks, Windows Embedded, Windows CE (RIP), NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, OS/2 Warp, Plan 9, Inferno, RiscOS, ReactOS...

It's a shame what happened to BeOS - I wonder what would have happened if BeOS was open-sourced when the expected Apple buyout fizzled and the company went-under instead of it simply disappearing - that would have put a huge damper on, say, Ubuntu and other Linux desktop projects because the whole selling-point of them being "the only usable desktop alternative to Windows on non-Apple hardware!" wouldn't be true.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#134
post #90

The author makes a good case against open source businesses, but he indulges himself in a false dichotomy between a traditional proprietary model and open source. Increasingly often, there is no market for your proprietary software. It is then not a choice between open source and proprietary models, but rather between doing open source or doing nothing. A lot of markets are just gone , and they're not coming back. Od…

> The author makes a good case against open source businesses, but he indulges himself in a false dichotomy between a traditional proprietary model and open source. More generally people seem to get tunnel vision about open source models. The big distinction in business software is not open vs. proprietary but SaaS vs. non-SaaS, with SaaS increasingly dominant. OSS companies therefore need to have a SaaS strategy. Yo…

What viable SaaS strategy can you have if Amazon can come at any moment and do the same?

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#135
post #90

The author makes a good case against open source businesses, but he indulges himself in a false dichotomy between a traditional proprietary model and open source. Increasingly often, there is no market for your proprietary software. It is then not a choice between open source and proprietary models, but rather between doing open source or doing nothing. A lot of markets are just gone , and they're not coming back. Od…

The market for new proprietary databases is both large and lucrative -- it is printing money right now. What has changed is the structure of the market and the product economics. The classic marketing-driven retail database product model, the kind that puts billboards on the 101, stopped working as a financial model a decade ago -- development costs are too high for the marginal return. That has been replaced by models that produce much higher margins with much lower development cost. Unlike database companies of yore such as Oracle, they use little overt marketing because they don't sell through the public. It is a completely different value proposition for the customer too. And this market is growing.

Proprietary databases have found their niche with qualitatively higher performance and throughput -- often 10-100x -- than the best open source has to offer on the same hardware footprint. As data continues to grow exponentially and cloud costs increase, operational efficiency has a much bigger impact on the bottom line than licensing cost. This gap has only been increasing over time. For most open source databases this is a fundamental architectural issue, and you can't fix architecture, so they are defenseless against highly optimized competitors.

I was on a project a year or two ago where a particular ElasticSearch workload was replaced by a proprietary solution that demonstrably offered 100x higher throughput. It was apparently worth tens of millions of dollars to the customer for that improvement.

The reason big retail databases went away is that 90% of the development cost is in the "big retail" part and not the "database" part. At the same time, development costs for a state-of-the-art database engine have become extremely high due to wage costs (worse than FAANG), so the industry needed to find a business model that would allow those costs to be contained. It is still around but much more invisible. It would be nearly impossible to properly finance a database company as a startup, so a different model is used.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author makes a good case against open source businesses, but he indulges himself in a false dichotomy between a traditional proprietary model and open source. More generally people seem to get tunnel vision about open source models. The big distinction in business software is not open vs. proprietary but SaaS vs. non-SaaS, with SaaS increasingly dominant. OSS companies therefore need to have a SaaS strategy. Yo…

What viable SaaS strategy can you have if Amazon can come at any moment and do the same?

Amazon only offers horizontal platform services. There's still huge opportunity in the verticals.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#138
If you give away your secret sauce recipe, no one will pay for your recipe (though some will donate), but people will still buy your fried chicken.

I think open source works best when it isn't your product, but your capability. An e-commerce site open sources it's product inventory management software. If I spin up a docker container with your software, I will be closer to building an e-commerce business, but I won't have one without a lot more work.

More examples: A blogger makes her own open source blogging software. A 3D games developer - open sources their AI engine or 3D engine.

You get community adoption, goodwill & hopefully contribution, ability to hire employees that already know your software. Possibly it identifies new markets to pursue.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#139
post #123

Great post, I completely agree! I have debated over this for years while building a self-hosted analytics platform (userTrack.net) and I have always reached the same conclusions: if I open-source it, not only I affect its sustainability but also the business goals would become complete opposite to the product goals (eg. as you mentioned, making it easier to install improves product but affects the business). I now th…

I think the pricing you mentioned is also part of the issue.

Companies that are open source but paid something have a crazy high price for that something. I know they are going after the Enterprise market but they still price themselves out.

Re: I wouldn't invest in open-source companies, even though I ran one

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author makes a good case against open source businesses, but he indulges himself in a false dichotomy between a traditional proprietary model and open source. More generally people seem to get tunnel vision about open source models. The big distinction in business software is not open vs. proprietary but SaaS vs. non-SaaS, with SaaS increasingly dominant. OSS companies therefore need to have a SaaS strategy. Yo…

What viable SaaS strategy can you have if Amazon can come at any moment and do the same?

Well you could start with a SaaS-first business model. People are obsessing about Amazon, but the fact is if you publish open source software and don't build an outstanding SaaS for it, somebody else will do it for you. It can't be an afterthought.

Second, add IP on top that makes the service easy to develop applications for, secure, easy to integrate with other SaaS services, etc. Amazon gives you a service but for the most part they don't build ecosystems.

Third, make it work on multiple platforms, not just AWS.

Fourth, integrate with AWS Marketplace and get their reps working for you.

Post reply on HN