Timeline for How do you effectively compete with an open source project?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2016 at 1:52 | comment | added | Andy | @fretje Customers absolutely do not care about open or closed formats, they just want their videos to play. OSS devs often make the mistake of thinking their users care about the same things they do, which is why many opt to pay for closed source. | |
| Feb 25, 2016 at 1:49 | comment | added | Andy | @LieRyan The ability to patch the code themselves is highly overrated. Even at software companies, you spend time building your own software, not trying to fix someone else's. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 15:41 | comment | added | Julia Hayward | One more point that I've been bitten by - smaller OSS projects are prone to self-destruct or go stale when someone critical leaves, either by falling out with the rest of the team or by losing interest. People are more likely to stick with projects through the less enjoyable times if their income depends on doing so. | |
| Jun 9, 2011 at 10:16 | comment | added | fretje | "customers [iOS users] have spoken: they do not care about open formats": It's not that they don't care about it... they just don't know there is a difference between "open" and "closed" formats (do they even know what "format" means?) | |
| May 21, 2011 at 15:39 | comment | added | tdammers | "OSS is prone to feature creep": Absolutely not. Most OSS programs are tiny do-one-thing-right programs, although their public visibility is lower than the large projects trying to mimic a monolithic commercial competitor. | |
| May 21, 2011 at 15:27 | comment | added | user1249 | @Lie, Android HAS beat Nokia. Why would they otherwise abandon their current platform and let Microsoft in? | |
| May 21, 2011 at 13:41 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | Didn't you just make all of my points except one? As in, it's more complicated for Joe Average, it's a hassle for him to worry about it, and it's wrapped with (pricey) services. Don't get me wrong on any of this, by the way: I actually use, contribute to, distribute and sell OSS. I'm merely outlining why my own customers knock at my door. They want something simple that works, and they couldn't care less whether it's open or not; they're ready to pay to get exactly that. | |
| May 21, 2011 at 13:35 | comment | added | Lie Ryan | @Denis: a Joe Average could theoretically hire a Jack Developer to backport security fixes he need; it might not be the best business decision, but he can (and that's what matters). With closed source, once support stops, the program is frozen forever (one can argue that this is sometimes better, since you just have the simple choice of upgrading therefore you don't need to give chance for an attacker to exploit your program while you're contemplating whether or not to upgrade) | |
| May 21, 2011 at 13:24 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | Apache comes with most Linux/BSD (all?) distributions, and is mainstream (for server software) in my book; try to get a CTO to use Hunchentoot. :-) | |
| May 21, 2011 at 13:18 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | You don't have much choice to choose old versions indefinitely when they've security holes. Try installing WP 2.3 on a web server and see how it is before a bot finds it and hacks it. And no, duct tape (i.e. back-porting security fixes) is not a reasonable option for Joe Average. With OSS you're forced to upgrade or be stuck with bugs forever too. | |
| May 21, 2011 at 13:07 | comment | added | Lie Ryan | "Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" But what if the best of breed software in the industry is an open source, say, Apache? or, perhaps in a few years, if Android is to beat Nokia? | |
| May 21, 2011 at 13:06 | comment | added | Lie Ryan | "OSS tends to have too short a development cycle" but if you're using OSS you don't need to keep pace with the latest development, you have the choice to use old version indefinitely and upgrade only when it makes sense to your business. With closed source software, depending on the licensing term, this is sometimes more difficult. Also, if an open source software stops supports for an old version, you have a choice to fork the old version and fix bugs/security issues yourself. With closed source, you don't have that choice so you either upgrade or stuck with the bug forever. | |
| May 21, 2011 at 11:09 | history | answered | Denis de Bernardy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |