July 15, 2008 9:07 AM PDT

The curious (mis)perception of open-source support

by Matt Asay
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 7 comments

Forrester finds that European enterprises cite support as their biggest reason for not adopting open-source software. This has persisted for years, with support (or, a lack thereof) consistently listed as one of the top reasons that enterprises throughout the world avoid open source.

The ironic thing is that open-source companies primarily sell support, not software. So...while proprietary-software vendors sell licenses with support as an afterthought, enterprises don't seem to question that they're going to get support. At the same time, open-source companies sell support with licenses as an afterthought...and enterprise buyers worry that they won't get support.

Huh?

Ultimately, I think this is a question of the relative maturity of the open-source market. Buyers equate the size of their vendor with the availability of support, and most open-source vendors are still tiny compared to Oracle, SAP, IBM, and Microsoft.

What they may be missing, however, is that a dedicated open-source vendor that makes its money selling support may well be a better source of support than a large vendor for whom support isn't its primary revenue stream.

I don't want to suggest that open-source support is always better than that provided by proprietary vendors. Oracle, as just one example and despite widespread grousing, consistently wins awards for its support.

No, I'm just suggesting that stifling your company's open-source adoption because of a perceived lack of support is silly and outdated. Welcome to the 21st Century. Open-source vendors provide support as good or better than their proprietary peers. Really.

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
Canonical shines its Ubuntu light on consumers
Open source became big business in 2009
Will we see an open-source IPO in 2010?
Could Apache keep Google's regulators at bay?
Red Hat's Q3 earnings defy gravity
Canonical's opportunity to simplify Ubuntu
Google--not necessarily 'more open than thou'
Is it Ballmer's fault?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by alegr July 15, 2008 9:49 AM PDT
Here it is: a proprietary software vendor (just like hardware and system vendor) wants to reduce number of support calls, because it doesn't bring profits (even paid support is below cost). Because of that, they're designing the software to require less babysitting from the vendor, to allow any grandma to install and use it. The business model is "sell and forget".

If OSS didn't require babysitting, the vendor would go broke. Because of that, single click installation is not very common thing there. They don't care much about that, though.
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider July 15, 2008 11:48 AM PDT
LOL

Does any piece of software require more support and babysitting than Windows?

At least you are consistently insane.
by jeyno1 July 15, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
Well, I have to disagree with your GenY point about the virtues of open source cf. traditional software commerce. I agree that it is certainly last year's fashion statement - but do you really think that in the mainstream, support revenues are a secondary consideration? Take IBM or Oracle for example; the maintenance revenue they receive is a major factor in their commercial plans... they will always make far more money out of maintenance fees for the software they originally licenced than they ever did from the sale transaction. There is billion-dollar business opportunity in keeping the worlds transaction based economy alive. Where do the dollars in open-source appserver technology sit by comparison? Any mature company - in any industry - realises that repeat business is where the majority of your business revenue comes from - and in the total business case, that license fee that got you started disappears. So why open source? It's a question of your politics, your culture, who do you trust, and when your lifestyle's on the line who would you pay to keep your investment working - to keep it current, to keep it returning value - and ultimately, whose responsibility do you want it to be for it to work.
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider July 15, 2008 11:49 AM PDT
What does politics have to do with a software license?
by xapeters July 15, 2008 12:27 PM PDT
Hi Matt,

Good article. I might add that support from Open Source Communities is usually much, much quicker. Users that post to our forums generally get a response within one hour. When is the last time anyone opened a support ticket with IBM. I have waited days to get a response only to find out that it got lost somewhere between here and India or ?

Jeff Peters
www.xaware.org >
Reply to this comment
by xapeters July 15, 2008 12:54 PM PDT
Hi Matt,

Good article. I might add that support from Open Source Communities is usually much, much quicker. Users that post to our forums generally get a response within one hour. When is the last time anyone opened a support ticket with IBM. I have waited days to get a response only to find out that it got lost somewhere between here and India or ?

Jeff Peters
www.xaware.org >
Reply to this comment
by daniellphillips July 15, 2008 2:01 PM PDT
I prefer open source because:

1. Open Source apps use open standards
2. Open Source apps, in most cases, allow for integration via open standards.
3. Open Source companies do not usually force their vendors to support only their software... Adaptec.
4. Open Source companies usually provide interfaces for integration with multiple vendors - not just Microsoft.
5. Open Source companies are primarily built off of open source software.
6. Open Source companies usually provide applications that run on closed and open operating systems. (Just look at what DimDim is doing - providing Mac support. Zimbra is a great example)
7. Open Source use social applications such as blogs and forums to provide detailed analysis where they are with new builds and software bug fixes.
8. Most open source apps provide a public forum to discuss issues and limitations as well as their resolutions. Most closed source apps are very secretive when it comes to offering info.
9. Open Source vendors usually allow negative comments in forums (they don't delete the comments they don't like)

OK, I'm done :)
Reply to this comment
(7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

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