Two seconds, I'll just go and /. you... prepare for server meltdown and intarweb cable combustion. - Juha Saarinen
via FriendFeed MT Plugin
Marshall,
I agree to that "Open Source" could hardly be a business model. However, let me just play a game of words a little bit. How about "Open to bid Source", could it be a business model?
You see, that's the difference. Open Source opens platform and asks volunteers to contribute. Please be note that in this paradigm there is no separation between consumers and producers because basically the programming volunteers themselves are both of the consumers and the producers in this picture. This is the intrinsic reason that the present "Open Source" is not a business since to be a business there must be a separation between the group of consumers and the group of producers.
Now let see what the "Open to bid Source" might work. In essence, my intention is to create a group of consumers that is different from the group of producers. Thus the process of transaction may occur and a business model is established.
Again, in this new paradigm we may have a platform of open source. This time, however, the open so - Yihong Ding
via FriendFeed MT Plugin
@Yihong,
In a way your model already happens. The only difference is that consumers hire producers ( programmers ) that modify the source to add new features or extend the system. The transaction happens internally in a "consumer organization".
If you want to move the line back so that the transaction touches upon the original creators, then the bid to Source system has to be more efficient than this one.
The problem is that you are introducing a middle man ( whoever manages the bidding system ) to broker the features, which is inherently less efficient.
So far, I would preferably hire programmers on a side to do exactly as I want, within my timeframe, under my control and bypass the brokers.
Just establishing dialog here.
I think these kind of ideas may get somewhere...
Best,
A - Aldo Bucchi
via FriendFeed MT Plugin
Not a viable business model - except for the users, and the people they need to support the software, and the ones they need to customize it, and the ones they need to teach the users, and... Ooops - is there a business model there after all ? - Jean-Marc Liotier
via FriendFeed MT Plugin
@Aldo,
Thank you for your addition. Certainly I know that this idea must not be a novel one since people have worked on the issue of Open Source for long time. Here is, however, the broker role that is actually the really interesting one.
Don't take me wrong. I fully understand your viewpoint that the addition of brokers may cause less efficient. However, there is another thought you might have overlooked as well. That is, how about the middle man is a community organizer rather than a broker. This is the Web-2.0 point of view versus the Web-1.0 point of view.
Therefore, the picture is not that developers seeking customers or customers looking for developers. It will be that both developers and customers joining an Open Source community simultaneously, and let the community be the judge that guides the growth of the Open Source platform.
In analogy, your described picture is a pure free market without government; and my described picture is a government-guided free market. Which one would be better? Wel - Yihong Ding
via FriendFeed MT Plugin
I fell for the linkbait. I love the title sizzle but honestly...
s/No Longer/Never Was/g
Conflation is such a easy trap to fall into and even harder to get people to agree upon when it transpires.
I have had similar conversations with CFO's and we've all collectively agreed that the IP/IC generated by a business is when there is a defensible and unique product and/or service is rendered -- and a business model would be nice to have too.
;-)
Seriously. FOSS isn't a business [insert term].
FOSS isn't a salvation for bloated and busted non-FOSS.
FOSS is FOSS. - qthrul
via FriendFeed MT Plugin
