Reading 09: Open source? Sounds communist to me





Open source can still make business sense today, even if it isn’t necessarily the most profitable choice (by %). As ESR has mentioned, by providing software for free, you can increase your market share more than proprietary software, and then sell add-ons / support / premium versions of the software in order to monetize the open source software. I think another element in favor of releasing open source software is the potential for it to be widely used by developers, who then encourage their companies to use it (and their companies will pay for an enterprise license / support). I believe winRAR used a similar model of selling, since it allowed users to use the free version of it indefinitely even though it warned them that they would have to buy a copy of it eventually (albeit not being an open source piece of software).

I think that services instead of software as a business model is definitely a viable model, potentially even more viable than the traditional model of simply selling software for a price at point of sale. I think of companies that sell razors - they don’t make money off of the actual razor, but off of selling you razor blades, and they make a very good profit off of that. I also know of many people that, with the new gig economy, offer a portion of their goods for free (i.e. like a book or articles on weightlifting/nutrition) while offering a service at a charge (specialized workout plans, personalized nutrition guides, etc). I think that is very viable both for corporations and also for developers individually. With the advent of the web and social media, it has never been easier for developers to freelance.

I think another form of funding for the open source movement to pursue in the future is a donation based model, similar to that of streamers (there are already some streamers who program, and they make a decent amount of money). With the rise of services like GoFundMe, Patreon, and OnlyFans, it is incredibly easy for a developer to directly get money from their users voluntarily, especially if they create additional media (Youtube videos, streaming) or offer other incentives to subscribe, like additional access to content, specialized lessons, or input in the direction of the programming. In theory, if a form of UBI / negative income tax is passed, there is an opportunity for programmers to survive off of purely donations because they would be able to support their living expenses with the UBI (among other things).

I don’t think the open source business model is broken, but the fact is that it is simply not the most efficient model (compared to closed source, and especially open core) and so because of that, in a free market without significant government intervention, it will be outcompeted. I could see something like government subsidies to open source projects or programmers, or grants to allow for server time / equipment, similar to the grants that European governments give to artists, musicians, etc. For example, a band I listen to, Sabaton, got their start because the government had a program for young Swedish musicians to get time in a recording studio, and because of that they were able to record an album, sign a record deal, and are now professional musicians.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading 04: Programming is an art (Donald Knuth approved!)

Paul Graham sees hacking (and by extension hackers) as closer to an artform than anything else. Paul describes hackers as makers, people who are creating something beautiful, not necessarily something new and original, but something beautiful whether in output or in design. I believe his definition is compatible and in fact fits in very well with Levy’s description of hackers. The hacker ethic even mentions that computers can be used for art and beauty! Additionally, from the stories we have read of early hackers trying to impress other hackers through code shaving to tales of hackers choosing to program an astronomically accurate star chart for the background of a game, we can see that beauty has been part of hacking since it’s very beginning. There are certainly diminishing returns to code shaving - once you’ve reached the point where you are spending hours upon hours to try and shave off a line or two of code, you’re wasting your time if you purely think of your efforts as being to...
Read more

Reading 02: ABC Always Be Selling out

  In this week's reading and discussion, we learned about the second wave of hackers, who were more focused on hardware than just software. These hackers were of a very different type than the hackers who were shaped by the culture of the RLE lab. While the first hackers were systems hackers, who were obsessed far more with the software they could make on the hardware they had, the second wave hardware hackers were very interested in building their own computers, especially with the rise of microprocessors. While they both emphasized the importance of the Hacker Ethic and the hands-on imperative, the main difference was that software was not the end all be all for these hackers. They did write and give away programs for free (at least, in the beginning they did), but they also focused on building their own computers and increasing their performance. The fun for these hackers was often in the actual construction of the machine and knowing why it worked, which was not as important fo...
Read more