Software piracy is a scourge on the world of computing. Yet it's a problem the open source community doesn't have. That makes sense; it's all freely available. But this raises the question: if it's free how do the developers make any money? And how can it be any damn good?
##CONTINUE##
I was interested in an article by Jeff Atwood at the end of last year where Atwood made reference to Bill Gate’s famous 1976 letter to the historic Homebrew Computer Club (one of the early computer ‘hacker’ groups, in the pioneering sense of ‘hacker’.)
The letter was occasioned by Gates’ perceived rampant pirating of his then Micro-Soft company’s version of the BASIC programming language on the Altair computer platform. The Altair was remarkable because it was the first mass-produced personal computer that was available pre-built. Prior to this, microcomputers were constructed from kits.
In his letter Gates refers to the time and costs spent in developing, maintaining and documenting the product. However, he did not see the compensation coming in for this time and effort as being comparable to the amount of people actually enjoying the product.
Specifically, Gates wrote:
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however. 1) Most of these “users” never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) the amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent of [sic] Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
If less than 10% of people using BASIC had not purchased it this means over 90% had pirated it.
Interestingly, Atwood also found a comment as recently as November 12th, 2008, where the developers of independent game “World of Goo” also report their piracy level as 90%.
As far as commercial software goes, little has obviously changed in the 32 intervening years from 1976 to 2008 – despite the use of unpopular copy protection mechanisms like serial keys, digital rights management (DRM) – which single-handedly gave Spore a hugely bad rap – CDs-required-in-the-drive, and so on.
Atwood’s article goes on to say that one thing is crystal clear: if you write software and charge money for it, your software will be pirated. It’s as sure as death and taxes.
Now, piracy is bad, okay? It hurts the programmers who depend on its sales to pay their bills and wages. Sermon over.
By contrast, software piracy pure and simple isn’t an issue in the world of open source. This is a no-brainer. It’s free to use and distribute.
Yet, this does raise the question: who the heck writes open source software? If they’re not paid to do it, is it any good at all? Certainly Microsoft has tried to use this argument. But is it true to say you can’t make money out of it, at all?
Arguments against open source from the Redmond software giant have often been along the lines that ultimately, programmers need to feed and clothe their families. Money has to come into at some point. While programmers might put a bit of hobby time into cutting free code, it’s not going to be sustainable for the long term.
Additionally, it has been argued, if open source is primarily developed by hobbyists with some spare time, then ultimately it can only aspire to spurt out Johnny-come-lately cookie cutter copies of pre-existing packages.
This argument goes that some business expert has a need and puts their expertise along with the capabilities of a talented programmer into making a software solution. Let’s assume Microsoft PowerPoint is such a product and that some hotshot visionary presenter saw the need for a piece of software that would let other spruikers distil their messages into bite-sized slides.
According to this argument, PowerPoint sells because it fulfilled a genuine need and someone saw that need and put in the resources to produce it.
To their mind, there isn’t anybody in the open source world doing the same thing: instead, a bunch of misfits collude online and think, “Hey, let’s make our own version of that” and never instead come up with the big idea or the niche product on their own.
These viewpoints have traction in some corners, but they are grossly flawed.
It’s not even reasonable to say they are “out of date” – that would imply that they were once true. Yet, let’s go back to the days of Bill Gates’ Altair BASIC. Let’s give some credit: BASIC (or indeed, any programming language) was an essential item for the earliest personal computers.
Without a vast library of shrinkwrapped software there was no other way to make your computer actually do something without putting fingers to keyboard and tapping out apps yourself.
Back then there was no clear-cut concept of what we now know as “open source.” Instead, people released their works to the “public domain.” Clever coders made applications and games and utilities and distributed them via bulletin board, or published the program listing in books and magazines for others to type in.
Back then, there was virtually nothing to copy. Consequently, these public domain programmers were producing genuinely original content.
(Although, interestingly, the first “real” personal computer application was VisiCalc, or Visual Calculator, which was the world’s first spreadsheet application. This was a massive boon to Apple and was single-handedly responsible for huge amounts of sales of their computer. Later, Microsoft produced their own spreadsheet app called, of course, Excel – by fundamentally thinking, “Hey, let’s make our own version of that.”)
Come to the present day and open source developers are still innovating. Top-ranking projects on SourceForge like Azereus and Audacity are leading their field; Apache is the world’s number one web server platform, and WordPress is arguably the top-rated blogging system.
So, while it’s definitely not fair to say open source software can only aspire to be an imitation, we still haven’t answered the pressing question: how the heck can anyone make a living out of this? Isn’t it true to say the people who write these programs will have to give them up for paid "real jobs" in time?
When it comes to open source software, one thing has to be noted from the onset. “Open source” isn’t the same as “anti-commercial.”
Just because you produce or use open source software doesn’t mean you have no means of gaining commercial advantage. However, open source software is anti lock-in.
It’s a significant difference. An open source software solution will protect end users from being stuck with a poor support company or developer. Any capable organisation or person or group of people can be hired to take on the work.
A second thing which must be noted is that it’s no longer true the bulk of open source software developers are altruistic individuals giving up their free hours. Of course, the contribution of such people is still of great importance and value but it’s not uncommon to now find open source code bankrolled by the likes of IBM, Sun Microsystems, HP, Red Hat and other companies.
In this regard, the programmers do genuinely have real jobs, paying real money, feeding their family, paying for their homes and cars.
The reason this works is because one of the primary business models for open source is through the sale of services and not the sale of licenses. In fact, as far as business models go, it almost seems backwards: Linux, for instance, is not charged as much as the market will tolerate but is just given away at no cost. Instead of hiding information, Linux can be examined by anyone at all, and – if you have the inclination and the technical smarts – the manner in which it works can be completely understood.
Despite this, there’s no denying that Red Hat – for one example – is a commercial success. Red Hat don’t profit from their Fedora Linux distribution but they can make money from derivatives – like offering technical support.
This really isn’t anything new; sales people since the dawn of time have been giving things away in order to sell something else. Telcos will offer mobile phone handsets if you sign up a contract with them. Finance companies will offer holidays or televisions if you take out a loan with them.
Giving away software for free is smart. It encourages consumption. Software that might otherwise not be looked at receives serious evaluation. Increasing the consumption of that product increases the size of the market for any products and services which accompany the product.
That’s the way notables like WordPress and SugarCRM bring in their revenue.
A case in point: because Linux is so readily available it has a share in the operating systems market. Consequently, the market size for Linux-related products and services has increased.
The result of this is that a company of the likes of IBM or HP or Dell now makes money from the hardware underneath Linux, or, particularly in IBM’s case, from the provision of consulting and support and implementation services.
Additionally, if an open source product is unique and is especially good it actually pre-empts any competition. Apache is a tremendous example: by being freely available and very good it is difficult for anyone to introduce a competing product. You can’t beat Apache on price and a lot of work would have to put in to beat it on features. Those providing support for Apache can expect many long years of paid work.
But all this said, there’s one final point to make. Those who do not understand open source business models believe it is naive to think people aren’t motivated by money and thus believe it cannot work.
Yet, the reverse is also true: it is naive to think people are only motivated by money. Open source developers – and as discussed can be well-paid – can rightly hold to a belief they are doing something positive for the world at large. And that's a true incentive.
-----------------------------
BY David M Williams
Source：iWire
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment