Comments on: Open-source vendors: Monopolies waiting to happen?

JBoss developer Roy Russo argues that open-source vendors are monopolies waiting to happen. Here's why he's wrong.

[martinpeac]

OSS vendors as 'incumbents'

hi Matt. Surely at some point even the likes of Alfresco become part of the 'establishment' and open to disruption? I agree with Roy that yourselves, and Zimbra, and many others may have pole position for the moment but it is in the nature of software (OSS or not), as in life, that the older the dog, the harder to teach new tricks.
http://opensourceornot.blogspot.com/2007/07/open-source-competition.html

[martinpeac]

OSS vendors as 'incumbents'

hi Matt. Surely at some point even the likes of Alfresco become part of the 'establishment' and open to disruption? I agree with Roy that yourselves, and Zimbra, and many others may have pole position for the moment but it is in the nature of software (OSS or not), as in life, that the older the dog, the harder to teach new tricks.
http://opensourceornot.blogspot.com/2007/07/open-source-competition.html

[daverosenberg]

Competition creates better OSS products?

I am not sure that more versions YAOSBIV are actually innovating but instead
just creating "me-too" apps that are not really differentiated. But its still hard
to tell as we typically on have 1-3 vendors compared with the proprietary
world that has 10 or more in many cases.

I'm not as convinced as I was that there can be only one winner BTW. There is
one other thing that I am starting to see--that there is room for the same
product when it's built on a different technology. For example, Hyperic is Java
and Zenoss is Python. Competing products, but different developer
communities.

Side note: I appreciate the Oscar the Grouch reference but please don't
include with GWB. I grew up in NJ, not Utah :>

[daverosenberg]

Competition creates better OSS products?

I am not sure that more versions YAOSBIV are actually innovating but instead
just creating "me-too" apps that are not really differentiated. But its still hard
to tell as we typically on have 1-3 vendors compared with the proprietary
world that has 10 or more in many cases.

I'm not as convinced as I was that there can be only one winner BTW. There is
one other thing that I am starting to see--that there is room for the same
product when it's built on a different technology. For example, Hyperic is Java
and Zenoss is Python. Competing products, but different developer
communities.

Side note: I appreciate the Oscar the Grouch reference but please don't
include with GWB. I grew up in NJ, not Utah :>

[botchagalupe]

Open + VC = Not Open

The VC companies that are clamoring to invest in OSS are the ones who created most of the proprietary vendors that OSS vendors are now competing with. OSS projects might start out with the best intentions but when big money is involved the solutions will become less open. IMHO, the biggest impact OSS will bring on the enterprise is lowering the cost of software and I agree change the licensing model. This is something the VC?s don?t get. They look at all these OSS startups as the next Tivoli, MicroMuse, Mirimba, ? I agree that OSS is going to change the way software is sold, but the money will be made in service IP and not in software IP.

[botchagalupe]

Open + VC = Not Open

The VC companies that are clamoring to invest in OSS are the ones who created most of the proprietary vendors that OSS vendors are now competing with. OSS projects might start out with the best intentions but when big money is involved the solutions will become less open. IMHO, the biggest impact OSS will bring on the enterprise is lowering the cost of software and I agree change the licensing model. This is something the VC?s don?t get. They look at all these OSS startups as the next Tivoli, MicroMuse, Mirimba, ? I agree that OSS is going to change the way software is sold, but the money will be made in service IP and not in software IP.