Open Source Unleashed

The next step for open source revenue models?

After reading Matthew Aslett's followup to Matt Asay's original entry on the problem with open source revenue models, I started churning my wheels upstairs. And while I won't offer a futuristic view of what open source revenue models will look like in 20** or beyond it is obvious to me that their evolution shouldn't be held to expectations set by a proprietary software world view. Still, it strikes me as odd that the boundaries of thought surrounding the open source world don't seem to reflect the stark differences between the nature of the business and software development models employed within the two domains.

It's my perspective that the assumptions and guiding thought patterns garnered from the business of [proprietary] software are too inflexible to hold across the board for open source. The debate over revenue models is a perfect example. As I see it, sustained open source growth will not occur by mirroring what works for the Microsoft's and Oracle's of the world. Instead, open source success will, more than likely, be defined by how closely revenue models are to the realities of 1000's of companies like this one. So while we can recognize that it's the ReadyTechs of the world which represent the bulk of open source consumption by companies, questions about where monetization fits in are still outstanding.

As a result, open source vendors will become responsible for monetizing channels that connect them to the many companies who've built businesses around open source. Which, to be clear, is entirely different from pushing cheaper (and presumably open) products through the same channels fit with minor tweaks to service and support offerings. Reaching companies that have fully bought and invested in open source is the next step those vendors serious about continued growth. Along those lines, one of the main challenges surrounds constructing revenue streams which are composed of such entities. And typically, the thought has been that businesses don't always need to become customers in order to benefit from open source. Which is true, but isn't a blanket statement. Yes, for those organizations looking to cut IT costs, nothing beats a free product.

However, there are still a significant number of gaps associated with building around community supported open source. Gaps which represent pain points for the companies that choose to forgo purchasing traditional service and support contracts. The dominant mode of thought is that the drop off between free and supported use is endemic to the open source experience, yet I view them it as an opportunity to expand the notion of service and support delivery. If this sounds abstract, picture vendors supporting self-support through highly cost effective, flex "contracts" which would cover the middle ground between going it alone and purchasing the 24/7-type support which can prove to be overkill. Or maybe, vendors could offer the option of a pay-to-join shared space in which to exchange success stories, best practices, successful deployment projects and architectures for community editions.

Whatever the case, the open source revenue models which plan to thrive had better evolve to create a bigger monetization overlap with their user base. Will this require innovation? Of course. Perhaps even radical (comparatively) forms of service and support delivery. However, all of it should be done within the context of preparing to capitalize on the next wave of open source disruption...instead of being crushed by it.

Technorati Tags: innovation | open source software | open source disruption

Open source overview 8/27/2008

Here are some interesting tidbits of open source news/updates from the past week or so:

• Red Hat Digital Keys Violated by Intruder - Security. Vulnerabilities in operating systems are nothing new. But let's be real for a second, when it occurs at an open source vendor like Red Hat the underlying assumption is that open = vulnerable. Still, this incident does bring into question the issue of certification as it relates to distribution of open source. I mean, if I download Fedora from Mirror #5 located in Country X, how sure am I that Red Hat, the assumed originator of the binary/source code in question, vouches for the contents of that package at that particular time?

• Does the market really want open options for cloud computing? I tend towards the perspective that open standards/open source sounds like it has more overlap with cloud computing than it actually does, at the current moment. I'm not particularly sure at this stage in the life of cloud computing that there is enough differentiation between a proprietary and open source cloud to drive preference for either. In essence, I think the market is still sorting out exactly what the cloud is about.

• Can Dell capture emerging markets with simplified PCs? I've got to wonder what cultural barriers might play a bigger role in determining if Dell can capture emerging markets. After all, price is only one determinant of success in capturing emerging Asian, African and Latin American nations. The article mentions computing needs, which I think is an apt term on account of the inherent diversity across the different nations in those regions. If the millions of "consumers" who compose these places are simply lumped into the emerging nations category from a strategy perspective, I feel like the results will suffer.

• Where will JavaFX lead?  The question shouldn't be does Sun have a shot in the mobile arena but how will it fit into the picture. How a mobile app space, one that has yet to mature to the point where bona-fide structural characteristics are evident, does not have room for another player is beyond me. That being said, it's also not clear exactly what JavaFX will bring to the table as an Rich Internet Application (RIA) enabler. Granted, the alignment between Java and JavaFX is a great for Java developers who have been left out of the RIA picture while Adobe, Microsoft and AJAX have provided their developers with capable tool sets. However, the JavaFX development kit simply needs to get out there and assert itself as an option before it's place is clear.

• What is Spacewalk?  A summary of what the open source (GPLv2) Linux systems management solution allows you to do might go as follows:
  
  • Perform inventory on systems (hardware and software information)
  • Install and update software
  • Collect and distribute custom software packages into manageable groups
  • Provision (kickstart) systems
  • Manage and deploy configuration files
  • Monitor systems
  • Provision and start/stop/configure virtual guests
  • Distribute content across multiple geographical sites.

Technorati Tags: open source software

Tactical open source for now...strategic open source later?

A corollary to the explosion of open source within the enterprise is it's evolution as an objective. In that light, open source has evolved from remote unknown/curiosity into somewhat of a key IT objective. Still, as I see it, open source continues as a tactical concern instead of a strategic one. By that I mean, it remains a means to achieving strategic IT initiatives such as building service-oriented-architectures (SOA), bringing enterprise collaboration into play or introducing web 2.0. A reality which isn't necessarily bad/good...only indicative of an actual state of affairs.

Listed below are just some of the strategic IT initiatives that open source, as a tactical measure, fuels:

• Enterprise collaboration. Tools such as Open-Xchange and Zimbra, instant messaging platforms like Openfire and Jabber, WordPress for blogging, and TWiki and MediaWiki can help drive the mandate for increased collaboration.

• Web 2.0. Dynamic languages (PHP, Python, and Ruby) along with various open source Ajax frameworks and tools from players such as Adobe and Laszlo Systems all contribute to

• Service-oriented architecture. Open source ESBs: Mule, OpenESB, and JBoss ESB help beat a path to SOA but are also supplemented by other enabling technologies including Axis, ServiceMix and Synapse.

Moving forward, I can visualize open source emerging as a strategic interest similar to, while also remaining a tactical driver for, the aforementioned. This as firms realize the inevitability of embracing open models of interaction and the enterprise software model matures to better accommodate open styles of software development. When this occurs we'll witness more participation by organizations in open source communities, more innovative forms of internal self-support as well as bridges to and from platforms like Microsoft's .NET or SAP's ABAP. The latter as both giants also come to a better understanding of where open source fits into their respective futures.

However, before this takes place there must be more awareness of the open source that is being used on both sides of the equation. For all of the Java based shops out there, I'd be willing to guess that the majority employ at least some open source. And I'd also venture to guess that very few know just how much. Since being aware of its presence will assist in effectively leveraging a larger scope of open source software, it's critical for this to change. The same goes for those companies dealing with suppliers...how many retain disclosure from suppliers regarding the amount of open source that is being used in commercial products? Very few, most likely. This variety of information might not seem relevant but is actually useful within the context of determining the value received in exchange for commercial licenses.

Yet the question of exactly how this transition from tactical to strategic will take place, remains. From my perspective, the increased presence of open source as a tactical mandate of sorts will drive the need for stronger open source governance. Which will further implicate closer alignment of overarching IT strategies with the open source domain. Currently, this link is missing and open source fails to remain relevant from a planning or strategic perspective. All despite the fact that there is definite value to be realized through open source on both fronts. The key will be for organizations to grasp that open source can, in fact, serve as a business accelerator.

Technorati Tags: enterprise strategy |  open source software | governance

Open source databases and the DaaS market...Where will it lead?

As enterprises look to scale support for a mounting number of applications, I expect that Database-as-a-service (DaaS) options will emerge from the recently nascent cloud computing infrastructures. Already, we're seeing the usual cast of suspects targeting the DaaS arena including: Amazon, Google, IBM, Oracle and Salesforce.com. While smaller vendors like EnterpriseDB, Elastra and LongJump are also in the mix.  In instances where traditional processes for database management and deployment are challenged by the need to scale more rapidly in a cost-effective manner, DaaS will prove attractive.

In general, DaaS can be defined as technology that  provides a database on demand at lower costs. Basically, a database offered through the cloud on a pay-as-you-go basis. By providing demand driven access to data storage via standard like REST and SOAP, I can picture DaaS evolving into the entry point for enterprises wishing to migrate to larger cloud-based infrastructures. In parallel, open source database vendors are faced with the opportunity and threat represented by this model. Why both? Well, DaaS use cases overlap with those of the current wave of open source databases. However, the DaaS model also represents somewhat of a natural transition for open source database vendors to extend service portfolio. Currently, the gaps met by open source will begin to be met by a new generation DaaS offerings.

• Application development and testing. Developers often face a lack of database resources as they seek to thoroughly test applications. In many of these instances open source databases have become the defacto option that enables developers to grab a database and perform functional testing without minimal stress. DaaS has the potential to offer on-demand database resources that reduces the hassle and cost associated with an on-site database.
• Web 2.0 offshoots. The notion of departmental collaboration has greatly benefited from Web 2.0 apps that speed the sharing of data, ideas and information. While email is still the primary collaborative tool of choice, newer Web 2.0 offshoots are making headway. Developing these types of applications will become even more feasible with the availability of a lightweight manner of storing and accessing data from a centralized location, that DaaS represents.
• Data archives. In the majority of cases, only 20% of production is consistently accessed. The other 80% of data is mainly used as fuel for historical reporting and compliance efforts. Open source databases continue to provide a low cost alternative to tape, one which scales better in terms of scan and retrieval. DaaS will do the same.
• SMB applications. With application requirements that mirror those of larger organizations minus the IT budget, resources or physical infrastructure, this has been touted as a natural fit for open source. Still, the SMB marketplace hasn't quite proven to be the promised land for open source vendors in general. Plus there is an opportunity for software-as-a-service (SaaS) vendors who are already dead set on further penetrating this market, to offer DaaS within the context of hosting not just data but also application development tools for building smaller apps.

In that light, open source database vendors might find their sweet spot in the marketplace encumbered by any number of DaaS alternatives from a host of players both large and small. The size of the DaaS market is anyone's guess/IDC's job to predict so it remains difficult to project what type of effect this might have on the open source database market itself.

However, to determine the trajectory of and effect upon open source I'm looking for EnterpriseDB and Sun as key indicators. The former will make a play with its Postgres Plus Advanced Server Cloud edition offered through Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) and Simple Storage Services (S3). All of which amounts to a full-featured, dedicated hosted relational database which can be setup, maintained, backed up and monitored through a web based graphical interface. The Sun-MySQL offering should shape into a serious contender as Sun has been somewhat of a pioneer with the Infrastructure-as-a-Service model (use of Sun servers and storage at $1/CPU per hour). On that note, it wouldn't surprise me to see Sun yank the MySQL DaaS offering on the Amazon EC2 cloud as it ramps up a more comprehensive offering in the near future.

Still, there are key shortcomings that the DaaS model must address, namely: security, response time for data access/update, and integration with existing applications/platforms. And it remains to be seen whether DaaS providers can scale the way their SaaS cousins have proven capable of. Will the model ever take hold as anything more than an add-on for database vendors? Only time will tell, but one thing's for sure: the evolution of DaaS will definitely leave its mark on the open source database landscape.

Technorati Tags: DaaS |  open source software | EnterpriseDB |  MySQL | Sun Microsystems | Amazon | SaaS

Additional commentary on the open source database market

Last week I got an email from Paul Breach over at IBPhoenix who was kind enough to supply some comments about my post on the database market. Paul stated that,

Its true that there is no single cohesive face for Firebird, and this is a situation I have tried to rectify a couple of times, unfortunately that issue is part of how Firebird was born. As an abandoned child of a failed open source attempt by Borland. Because of this no single company "owned" the code, so we had to rely on volunteers to get the project going.

Now the project is run by a project admin team, consisting of those who are most active within the project - "true democracy" :-). The project is financed by the Firebird Foundation and a company called IBPhoenix. IBPhoenix was a company I started at the time when Firebird was open sourced.

So there is a company behind Firebird that offers professional support, training etc etc and the people who work for it are all actively involved in the project in various ways. I for example look after porting to MacOSX, Solaris and HPUX, we are also responsible for the windows builds, release notes and QA.

So should anybody argue that we cannot offer fully supported production deployments, then I would argue that they were wrong.

I decided to post these comments because they help portray a key dilemma facing a number of open source projects that have managed to stick around and establish a respectable level of critical mass. For example, Paul mentions the circumstances under which Firebird was formed and came of age, i.e. how the project was volunteer driven after being abandoned by Borland. The result: an egalitarian-centric project that doesn't rely on an individual face to represent it.

Decidedly, this form of "true democracy" continues to work well for the project. However, it also creates the false perception (in the minds of outsiders) that the project lacks clear and decisive leadership. Maybe I should have rephrased my initial comments on it by saying that the project continues to appear as if it lacks a cohesive face and/or supporting vendor. Obviously this isn't the case (as Paul pointed out), but in the absence of something that essentially "represents" the technology, it becomes the default assumption. At the end of the day it's rarely a negative when a person and/or identifiable company culture is associated with a product. After all, they can serve as integral aspects  of any brand.

If anything, the Firebird community, like so many others in the general open source community, will benefit from painting a clearer picture of its structure. Why? Because a stronger link between Firebird => Firebird Foundation => IBPhoenix immediately dispels the notion of a not quite viable database floating around in the atmosphere. For those who won't ever experience a hands-on use of the database this does count for something. The effect that expressing that there is more than one group of people involved/interested in an effort can be quite powerful. In fact, it can add a layer of instant credibility just like that.

My take on what Paul expressed to me is that, part of the equation involves understanding that a project like Firebird should be gauged differently...especially considering the non-traditional model it employs. And honestly, the fact that it may not register on most folks' radar does not directly qualify as a weakness. So while I still believe the project has tremendous room to grow, for all intensive purposes it still exhibits most of the core elements of open source success.

Technorati Tags: Firebird |  open source software | database software

Thoughts on the open source database market

As a precursor to OSCON this week, Forrester stepped forward with a new report titled  "Market Update: Open Source Databases," one that tags the current market for open source database market at $850 million, with growth to $1.2 billion by 2010. I haven't seen the entire report but I did get around to reading the excerpt available on Forrester's web site. I'd sum up my thoughts on the future of open source databases by saying that they will continue as a tool of choice for applications that are ants in comparisons to the sledgehammers of the database world (Oracle, IBM). Obviously, Sun's strategic vision for MySQL will play no small part in this picture. However, open source databases will fuel a great deal of the innovation that has yet to surface (think cloud computing, corporate Web 2.0 and improved forms of content management).

New types of applications that have yet to breach mainstream are already being developed atop open source databases. We saw this with MySQL and web applications and we'll continue to see a similar relationship develop between open source databases and application developers who sit closer to the cutting edge. Additionally, I'm looking for more and more consulting houses to begin offering implementation services for open source databases as the demand for newer types of solutions emerges. Still, it will remain difficult to determine just how big the pond is for open source databases since they will continue to power a great deal of applications in anonymity.

I also fully expect that open source database vendors will begin to better harmonize the potential of their communities with business models. As it stands, the open source community is the place to go for support with non-production deployments. And there are more effective ways to align this with the delivery of 24x7 premium support. Tiered layers of support patrons could emerge as a monetization vehicle that serves user who don't want to sign up for the traditional support contract but want a fast track for feedback to questions and issue resolution.

I've got the feeling that we'll also witness the emergence of Ingres as a more noted player in this segment. In the past, it has lacked the visibility of a MySQL or PostgreSQL/EnterpriseDB. However, since splitting from CA two years back, it has continued to build out a comprehensive set of database features. Still, the company needs to figure out how to gain back the implicit sense of credibility that being associated with CA brought it amongst the enterprise crowd.

Along the same lines I see Firebird retaining its occult-esque status with a subsection of developers who recognize its value as solid technology. At the current moment, Firebird lacks a cohesive face and/or supporting vendor so it continues to fly under the radar despite its relative strengths. It won't be able to establish enough penetration outside the developer community until the prospect of fully supported production deployments becomes a reality. Then again, I'm not so sure that's the ultimate goal of the project.

Technorati Tags: MySQL |  open source software | Ingres |  PostgreSQL | Firebird | RDMS

Thoughts on the latest release candidate for MySQL 5.1

Now that MySQL has decided to ready the final Release Candidate (RC) for version 5.1 instead of moving forward with a General Availability (GA) release and Michael Widenius has extended an bug filing call to its user community. I've been thinking about where MySQL stands as an official 5.1 release has been pushed back. For all it's dominance as the glue for LAMP stacks and engine for Web 2.0 infrastructure, my thoughts on MySQL have little to do with Sun's $1B acquisition or whether it can topple Oracle DB. Rather, they're focused on core realities associated with the product itself. Namely:

• For those who remember, MySQL 4 left a bad taste in the mouth of more than a few. Not that anyone expected it to be perfect but the lack of so called "advanced" features like triggers, sprocs, udf's were a turnoff. To this day there is a healthy segment of PostgreSQL users that swear MySQL is an amoeba in comparison, and most base this assertion on having used MySQL 4...seriously. A lot of this is understandable, version 4 lacked support for things like nested SELECT's so it's to be expected that some folks' experience was less than ideal. Unfortunately, those who fled MySQL before the 5.0 was available missed out on some notable additions, including syntax changes that moved it closer to ANSI standards.

• The 5.1 GA will be the first widely available release with native XML functions. I'm waiting to see if there's any indexing support behind all the xPath.

• MySQL has consistently trumped PostgreSQL with it's ease of install, maintenance, and lower levels of complexity. Still, MySQL lacks what some would call the basic ability to store a timestamps with greater than a second accuracy. In the operational world a database that can't do that would be considered a step away from Access. At least milliseconds are required and microseconds are preferred. Note: MySQL currently recommends stripping the sub-second information from the time sent, storing it in another column, then implementing a view which combines them back. However, for functionality that classed as basic this comes across as overkill...especially when the database's calling card is simplicity.

• Apparently, before being bought by Sun, MySQL AB were already contemplating making the move to more proprietary tools. From what I've been told, it was agreed that this was a natural progression that would enable them to monetize pieces of the pie. Talks were set in motion and the decision was left on the table...then Sun purchased them. After the acquisition, Sun didn't see the need to/benefit in proceeding down that path in the near term but took heat as some fingered them as the original source of the idea.

At the end of the day, the delay of version 5.1 GA will afford us with a look at what the priorities for Sun's adopted open source child are at this point. The state in which 5.1 hits the ground running will reflect how Sun intends to position MySQL moving forward. My hunch is that we'll witness longer gaps between releases as more focus is paid to QA, testing, certification and feature stability than in the past.

Technorati Tags: MySQL |  open source software | Sun Microsystems

Getting the bus moving...The topic of inertia

Lately, facing the prospect of picking up blogging after some significant time away from it, I've been pondering the topic of inertia. Most are already familiar with the term, but underestimate how this fundamental principle is applicable outside classical physics...even when examining the topic of attitudes towards open source in the year 2008.

For those who've witnessed the growth of open source from fringe movement to full-fledged force, it goes unnoticed that most decision makers continue to harbor woefully outdated ideas and perceptions about open source software. Part of this might sound absurd at first, so to better illustrate my point here are some categories of interest as my experiences have revealed to me:

1. Totally unaware - Have never heard of open source (a fringe minority).
2. Not interested - Have heard but not motivated to even consider it.
3. Interested but inactively so - Might read, discuss or even inquire but nothing further.
4. Leaning towards exploring - Actively informed and interested but still several steps away from a pilot.
5. Actively exploring - Already piloting.
6. Adopters - Been there done that.

I suffices to say that categories 2 and 3 claim the vast majority of the enterprise crowd. Part of it is that within the modern enterprise (especially larger ones) higher degree novelty = higher degree of risk. So while time might be the absolute test for all things (over the long haul) it's still safer to fall within accepted boundaries (in the short term). Meaning open source isn't just competing on grounds of functionality, price and "value" but also against organizational inertia. The patterns, habits and assumptions built atop years of playing in closed gardens is a strong force, to say the least.  Even as open source has proven itself "good enough" where it matters most, these ingrained habits and viewpoints represent another hurdle.

To overcome this, open source must represent enough gain to soften widely-held doubts about the model itself. Once again, these concerns might sound a bit 2003-ish but are still relevant today in 2008.

1. Security of the software - The association with open code bases and vulnerability still exists.
2. Availability of service and support - A great deal of open source packages don't have a supporting organization behind it...nor should they.
3. TCO - Not just monetary costs but those resource and knowledge based.
4. Legal issues - Self explanatory
5. Viability of the open source communities - Can communities be counted on to deliver consistently? Will open, collaborative software development model stand the test of time?
6. Complexity of adoption/learning curve - What exactly does it take to establish tailored policies, governance, etc.?
7. Product maturity - The one concern that will gradually dwindle based solely on the passing of time.

Where the above have been shown to be addressed, open source has flourished (commercially and otherwise). Where one or more of these doubts linger, growth has been substantially slower and/or sporadic. Unfortunately, the inactive passing of time during which open source "sticks around" does not guarantee that the above will be proven moot. Neither does the financial viability of individual open source vendors. It will take a concerted effort to continue to push the open source model with the objective of chipping away at some of the misplaced concerns that linger.

Technorati Tags: inertia |  open source software | enterprise adoption

Open source, solutions and what it takes to pursue a middle ground

In my last post I attempted to overlap what it would take to establish a middle ground and the concept of open source driven solutions.  I'm not sure how well my point went across, but I am certain that the notion of a new wave of solution that not only includes, but is rooted in openness is one that's here to stay. With that in mind, I think it's relevant to look into what it will take to facilitate the shift towards flexible, truly open solutions. More than anything I think this entails a change in perception regarding what/how sizable a role open source will play in the mostly nebulous world of "solutioning." In effect, what needs to happen in order to kick-start the evolution of open solutions from embryonic towards maturity?

To those allergic to buzzwords, the term solution might incite a sneeze. However, upon further examination a great deal of technology is delivered as a solution, that is a bundled, ready-to-use component. The consumer technology market, by itself, is rife with examples (see: the iPod, most home PCs). And while the concept that consumers want to purchase products that fit a specific niche practically out-of-the-box, the notion that the same holds for large companies isn't as evident. To be fair, it's not possible to mass produce ready-made technology for organizations with narrowly defined business requirements and use-case scenarios. And in the case of open source, there are hardcore realities that stand in the way of it playing a larger role in driving greater time-to-value and cost efficiency:

• Integrated designs. One solution size does not fit all and the fit is typically determined by the industry in question. This implies a knowledge of specific segments drawn out in the form of industry solution maps.
• The importance of the sales cycle. Solutions are sold, first and foremost. Open source is still being stealthily transported into a great deal of enterprise environments with the sales process a shortened after thought. If the notion of open source solutions is to take hold, it must be sold and accepted wholeheartedly not smuggled in and permitted to stay afterwards.
• Overlap with industry proven models, best practices and methodologies is key. Acronyms like CBM, IFW and BPM might not be everyday terms but they are industry proven and widely accepted as the basis for solutioning.
• The criticality of a top-down approach that initially prizes business value over technology. I won't pose the bottom-up mentality that has buoyed the open source software movement for some time now, against the seemingly inherent top-down nature of most hierarchies. However, it pays to note that technology selection/procurement is at its core a business decision. And unlike individual products, integrated solutions speak more to the business side of things than anything else.

Finally, if open source solutions are to evolve they must rely on more than being cheaper. Especially since the marketplace tends to base its decision on more factors than just price alone. The market for solutions is driven by participants who exhibit demand for addressing their industry-specific performance drivers, are modular and customizable. Add to the fact that providers which can accelerate time to value, reduce risk and deliver integration are its leaders and it becomes evident that the road to broadly relevant open source solutions is a tough one, indeed.

Technorati Tags: solutions |  open source software

Pursuing a middle ground

Note: I'll start this blog post off with an acknowledgment to those who have posted comments on my main blog site (http://alexfletcher.typepad.com) for the past two-and-a-half months. I have been unable to view newly posted comments through my TypePad administration console since earlier this year. I was unaware of the fact until after a recent maintenance outage for TypePad I was able to see the deluge of comments that have been posted. I have yet to determine exactly why this was the case, but am looking into it.

On that note, Redmonk's own, Cote' left me a comment (on this post) two weeks or so that struck me as thought provoking.

"What would you add - if anything - about using organizations like the Eclipse Foundation, the ASF, or other standards/code bodies to have a sort of neutral-ground and/or organization "middleware" for all this?"

While the concept of middleware that sits between an increasing array of quality software, produced as output of the open source development model, sounds abstract the growth in demand for open source has created a void for just that. This middle ground is essentially a nether region between software vendors/system integrators and the businesses looking for last mile solutions. Typically, for the larger companies and organizations it's players like IBM GBS and Accenture Global Services that go that last mile to deliver the notion of an integrated solution (excuse my marketing-speak). However, this is done taking a proprietary approach (products, tools and processes). Which proves wildly profitable for both of the aforementioned companies, still what has yet to be seen is who will play the role of coagulating some of the disparate sources of open source, refining it and delivering as consumable pieces that meet a specific business need.

I'm a big proponent that software is bought for what it does instead of what it is. High-end ERP implementations don't ring up 7-8 figures on account of simply being an ERP rollout, rather it's the fact that these systems are often the lifeblood of modern business operations. And there's a growing role for open source within the context of ever narrowing market segments. The Eclipse Foundation has caught wind of this reality and begun to branch out in the direction of specialization. And they're not alone, the OSA has made headway towards giving life to the open solution. These efforts will be instrumental in making open source feasible for segments such as the SMBs, microverticals, service industry verticals and emerging economies.

This is precisely where the middleware analogy is applicable. In the case of organizations like Eclipse and the Apache Software Foundation they are the glue/packaging that enable that sits between the raw productive power of the open source software model and the industry-specific needs of its consumers. Strangely enough, the need for a middle ground goes almost entirely unmentioned. Yet in the absence of an established group of open source behemoths that influence macro-level trends increased prevalence of organizations that serve as a neutral buffer is a positive. Realistically, these organizations don't even have to resemble Eclipse or Apache. And I fully expect that more OSA-style groups will sprout, as profit-turning entities like SIs or vendors begin to realize that it works to their benefit to cooperate towards delivering a collectively neutral approach to "solutioning."

Whether this middleware is spurred by marketplace demand or the proactive foresight of players in industry has yet to be seen. Additionally, increased consolidation amongst open source participants might bring about de-facto platforms fit with ready-made ecosystems that can standalone from one given end to another. However, to wait for impending consolidation is reactionary and strategically sloppy, at best. Especially since in the light of every acquisition (large and small) there is considerable room to pursue the middle ground.

Technorati Tags: solutions | open source software