• On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
November 24, 2008 10:07 AM PST

Open source, free markets, and the capitalist urge for $0.00

by Matt Asay
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 7 comments

Slashdot asks a provocative question: "Is Open Source Software a Race To Zero?"

Over time we've seen our business model eroding as other open source projects produce free versions of the same extensions and utilities that are our bread and butter. Something that was worth $5K last year is suddenly worth $0 because the free version is just as good as the paid. This same cycle is obviously having an impact on pure-play commercial software vendors. Is open source ultimately a race to zero?

It's a good question, but the answer is the same as if asked about free-market economics: yes. Yes, open source is a race to $0.00, because that is what free-market capitalism is all about.

Indeed, the "free" in "free and open-source software" is really about free markets, more than anything else. This is why Tim O'Reilly has been urging the open-source world to stop fixating on bits, whose price point is dropping to $0.00, and focus instead on data and higher-value services around data.

Open source is a free-market, capitalist phenomenon. It's all about driving yesterday's value to $0.00, and forcing the market to innovate new ways to discover and price value.

Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay.
Recent posts from The Open Road
Apache: 'No jerks allowed'
Cloud to suck money out of market, report says
When open source isn't (open enough)
SAP wants an open Java process (pot, meet kettle)
Google shifts software value to operations, away from IP
Mobile: Still waiting to see what sticks
Google privacy controls: Most people won't care
Amazon's move mocks EU's fear of Oracle
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by forever4now November 24, 2008 10:52 AM PST
I think a lot of software vendors brought this problem on themselves. For example:

1. MS Office: If Microsoft had made MS Office cross platform (Windows/OS X/Linux/Unix) BEFORE OpenOffice was developed, would OpenOffice have been developed? OpenOffice simply addressed the need for an office productivity suite on non-Windows platforms.

2. Photoshop: Would GIMP have been developed if Photoshop was available for Linux/Unix?

3. iTunes: Songbird is evolving into a potential rival for iTunes. Would it have been developed if Apple had made iTunes available for Linux/Unix?

4. ...

It is possible these programs would have been developed anyway, but the need for them would have been much less and people may have just stuck to what they already knew.

Personally, I think commercial software companies should move quickly to support Linux before Linux gains further market share with alternatives that entirely negate the need for their products.
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider November 24, 2008 11:34 AM PST
Interesting question. I think that programs like The Gimp still would have since there is no way Photoshop would be released on Linux as OSS. Possibly with OpenOffice as well.

Software is quickly becoming a commodity, which is good for everyone. Even the soon to be dead companies that can't adapt.
by KentLBeck November 24, 2008 11:49 AM PST
I see two economic forces in conflict. Yes, the duplication cost is zero which economics predicts will drive the price to zero. However, the creation cost is not zero, so the price can't be zero without driving non-subsidized producers out of the market.

As someone caught in this squeeze, I'd love to see a way out of it. Ten or fifteen years ago I could write a little tool that provided value for my customers and expect to get a fair return on my investment. Now I don't expect to see any return, so (economics again) I curtail my tool building. This doesn't seem like an optimum allocation of resources, but I've got bills to pay.
Reply to this comment
by deepwave November 24, 2008 11:57 AM PST
Software used to cost $0 to sell when computing started. As one IBM engineer once quibbed, if a client was paying a few hundred thousand dollars for a mainframe, that client better damn well get the application and source code running on top of said mainfrace for free.

Software is an enabling technology. Its future is most likely in enabling services, utilities and hardware.
Reply to this comment
by forever4now November 24, 2008 12:24 PM PST
@The_Decider

I am not familiar with all the licensing details, but I do know there are closed source applications being delivered with Ubuntu and other distributions (e.g. Skype). There are also a number of programs that are offered for purchase on the CNR site (www.cnr.com). Thus, I don't believe it is a requirement that Adobe, Microsoft, or any other commercial software vendor open source their software, in order to offer it to Linux users.
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider November 24, 2008 3:08 PM PST
No it doesn't have to be open source, and that was not my point.

My point was that these programs would still likely exist, even if they had a linux version, precisely because these programs were not open source.
by The_Decider November 24, 2008 3:09 PM PST
To give you an example:

Nvidia produces proprietary linux drivers for its video cards, and they are top notch.

But there is a still a drive to produce working drivers for these cards that are open source.
(7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

advertisement

About The Open Road

Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to the Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is general manager of the Americas division and vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Open Road topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right