[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bill Wilson wrote: > > I am a firm believer in open source but there is a fundemental > misunderstanding when discussing developing larger scale software. > > The product we are developing is a much larger project than Zimmian or > netscape. > > Our last product Mobius (see ylem.com for scope of product) stands in > excess of 6 million So probably a fair bit smaller than Linux. I hate to estimate projects like KDE, as they are just too nebulus, but I assume well over 60 man years in total effort is a safe bet. > Cutting code is approx 10 - 15% of the cost of producing the product. > Approx 25% takes place in design and specification this cost has to be > incurred before anyone else could start to work on a large scale system. > This figure would increase if we were to outsource the other tasks. We > know this because we looked at offshore development and ruled it out on > overhead costs of management. I would think that there would be a bigger > increase if we were to go open source. Your assuming no one else would do design, specification or testing for their modifications..... I agree there are management issues, but if you see open source as free coding you've missed the point I still suspect that the approach is to get others to extend the product via other modules. You retain rights over the core areas of problems you solve, but you let others solve other areas of interest the them. Thus you can eventually solve additional problems, but retain a clear competitive edge, at least until people reimplement your existing modules better elsewhere. Either way you ultimately transition to consultancy, "we solve these issues of business management", just as Oracle are. > Plus Mobius today has no known faults It's usually the unknown ones that get you in my experience. What no open support calls regarding code at all - sounds unlikely to me. > I have serious concerns over publishing 6 > million pounds worth of code if its ripped off I cant afford to sue a > large company. I think you mistake cost with worth, my car cost 7 grand, and probably spent several more on maintenance, but it isn't worth 9 grand (well unless someone wants to make me an offer). Software has zero intrinsic value (to the producer at least), unlike my car which is probably worth about 20 quid as scrap, or more as parts (the new battery must be worth 25). It's value is purely what the market will pay. Thus the primary value in software companies is tied up in support contracts, staff know-how about your customers business, other intangibles. If someone produces a neater prettier program to do the same thing, the remaining value in your software is probably a few multiples of existing support revenue. Although CA are the experts at squeezing value from end of life software, so if the time comes you know who to emulate if you want to kill it profitable. Often easier for companies to switch their expertise to selling newer products to their existing clients, who trust them and have a relationship, just as Cray ship Fujitsu (?) supercompter, or perhaps more locally Allvoice selling IBM voice recognition software (ouch, that must hurt). Not only does software decay remarkably fast it also depreciates quickly as well. Of course if your annual revenue from Mobius related activity is more than a few million, it's probably worth more than 6 million, although not all of the revenue would necessarily disappear if you release some or all of the code under different licences. In contrast I suspect your software is also more expensive than MS Word to develop (at least early versions of MS Office perhaps), but presumably generated less revenue from sales. > Microsoft are now a competitor with Great Plains and Navision so we have > an uphill struggle with marketing against the big guns. Microsoft usually come in with cheap, easy to use, but not terribly good. However remember a lot of what most software does is the basic stuff, advanced features, reliability and security are nice, but it is amazing what is "got away with". I was involved with a company selling source code management software, when Microsoft Visual source safe made an appearance, the management totally underestimated the threat and refused to try and compete more on price. Partly because they were being driven by venture capital which demanded revenue, but partly because they didn't consider it a valid competitor. It can't do this, it loses files when you do this or that, it loses the integrity of the archived software when you do this etc. A lot of these things are only obvious to specialists in the field, not to the buyer. But VSS integrated well with other tools, and eventually the combined Visual Studio offering ate a lot of the market, from them, and other companies in the field who also failed to try and take the mainstream. I think the product may still exist but if I don't know you can imagine how well it is doing..... Okay cutting prices aggressively, and grabbing for market share might not have worked either..... People feel very comfortable buying Microsoft software, even in areas where it is demonstrably inferior, they seem to take great comfort from buying from thorny giants with some vague notion they won't do the dirty on them. Strange but true. > This is a dilema we all have to solve if we want the majority of > software to be open source. > > Thanks for the input and keep the ideas coming in I am not closed to any > suggestions as to how we can all solve this issue. I'll keep thinking if you keep telling us more about it... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+f1PAGFXfHI9FVgYRAiK0AKDSf9HYAIjXKlZ7TDXJC+g3+51glACgrzb2 CX8PwIoRN0B0k1QSDMNvI34= =gZfv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.