I got around to reading one of Dana Blankenhorn's post about "Following the money in open source," which hints to the distribution of rewards within the open source ecosystem. Dana starts out by mentioning the fact that the open source development model is relatively transparent while the use of that open source in the enteprise tends to be opaque. He continues to say that open source companies invest quite a bit of resources at the beginning in trying to build community, attract participants while growing a business infrastructure. …an assertion that I happen to disagree with for a couple of reasons.
In my perspective, the nature of the open source model enables a more organic, naturally occurring growth than the proprietary model. There is less need to acquire working capital throughout the embryonic stages of product development/delivery as focus is on establishing a surrounding community infrastructure, something which is best accomplished by focusing on writing quality, readable software, plus a bit of documentation. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cream definitely rises when it comes to open source as software which meets a timely need or solves a problem, doesn't tend to languish in anonymity forever. It may take time but grassroots momentum turns out to be almost impossible to derail once it gets going. As a matter of fact, it complements momentum created as a result of high powered marketing/P.R. efforts. Being able to actively court push from the bottom-up enables open source operations to eschew investing resources to do the same using traditional approaches..
Just yesterday I published a post related to how I feel the open source model enables rapid scaling by promoting the concept of shared ownership. Accordingly, this concept is relevant to the manner in which rewards (which can take a number of different forms) are distributed throughout open source ecosystems. Perhaps the reality that value is spread throughout the commons of an open source community is an answer to the question of where is the first open source billionaire and billion dollar business. It suffices to say that the open source model provides the opportunity to realize a more cost-efficient ramp-up to critical mass as a tradeoff for lower valuation values in the beginning. However, as time passes what begins to matter most is the quality of the product and integrity/competence of the company behind it. Red Hat is entering that phase, where the fact that it is an open source solutions company matters far less than its reputation for high quality products and services. Others are bound to follow as well.
I'll extend Dana's mention of the media buffet into an analogy of open source as a buffet line, where a multitude of food is provided in direct proportion to the nature of each dish. For example, hor'deurves are normally there in relatively copious amounts seeing how they are typically smaller and consumed far easier. Whereas, larger items such as pot roast might only be set out one at a time and so forth.
Successful open source communities speak to the same balanced proportions by promoting only what is needed at the time/in the near future. Proprietary companies who are prompted to take on outside investment as a way to offset the costs of scaling a start-up, tend to expand their business infrastructure in anticipation of revenue growth instead of alongside it. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can add to the pressure to grow, grow, grow in place of remaining focused on build, build, build in preparation of more stable long term growth.
Therefore in response to Dana's closing poll/question, I don't really think there's one singular hold to be had on jumbo shrimp along the open source buffet. Microsoft obviously has its hands all over the entire tray with Windows and Office suites, but I don't see it being there to be had in the same way when it comes to open source. It's just not in its DNA to promote concentration of ownership and disproportionate distribution of rewards. Perhaps I'm off the mark and is a matter of me not having yet witnessed it with my own eyes, but I don't think that's the case...we'll see.
Comments