When talking about consumers/end users and about Open Source most of the debate is on whether these user groups will eventually accept Linux on the desktop and OpenOffice.org as a replacement of the software they are using today (mostly MS Office). But in reality millions of consumers and end users are already using Open Source operating systems and software on their devices! One third of all the netbooks are equipped with Linux, the Android phones are selling like hot cake, and even the Mac and iPhone users have mostly Open Source foundations below their shiny Apple user interfaces. With Google Chrome OS yet another weapon enters the battle. And at the end of the day, consumers don’t really care, as long as the software is supporting their needs and look cool!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Many people have compared leading commercial proprietary software offerings such as SAP, Siebel or Filenet with Open Source alternatives (such as OpenBravo, SugarCRM or Alfresco). The conclusion often was that the Open Source option can’t compete on features and breadth. But the fact is that in many cases enterprises don’t need this scope in reality. I have seen so many companies implementing large scale commercial package solutions such as Siebel resulting in a pretty basic application with fairly little functionality. Independently of the outcome though the costs for these projects were high. IT decision makes often underestimate the cost coming with the complexity of a widely configurable and adaptable package solution. In these projects you not only configure what you need, but also a lot what you actually don’t need, just to make the solution work. Given this problem in many situations an enterprise would be better consulted to use a narrower (Open Source) technology and spend a bit of money to adapt and customize it. I can guarantee that the overall costs still will be way lower than the “big” solution. I have often observed companies being tempted to by a “Rolls-Royce” because it was offered at a “Volkswagen” price point, not because it was needed. It looks like a low risk decision. But it isn’t. Maybe in the end it is the right thing to do, but at least an attempt should be made to model and quantify an alternate solution (using Open Source). It may cost you a few dollars or a bit of time, but your arguments later will be that much stronger whenever the decision is challenged. And I am sure, in many situations, “less is more” when all the complexity, maintenance and support cost is fairly factored in.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

There have been many discussions about the benefits of Open Source - the usually mentioned cost reductions and reduced dependencies, or the positive impact on development and implementation speed (as just mentioned in a blog post by Jan Lyman from 451 Group). A key question though is who actually has really profited from the fact that since roughly 10 years with have viable Open Source technologies that can be used as components or as replacement of commercial software.  In my eyes it’s three groups that benefited the most:

1. Startups and internet mega players - without Open Source Google, Youtube or Facebook wouldn’t be were they are today. Think about the license money they would have had to play to Sun or IBM.
2. Enterprises - with the rise and success of Open Source technologies competing traditional commercial software had to lower prices substantially. Just look at the prices for content management or databases.
3. Software companies - with Open Source development speed can be increased and the cost for new features has been going down thanks to the possibility to integrate Open Source software

Commerical Open Source companies are not (yet) on this list, as in my eyes only a few have been really successful (yet) and the amount of money they are making is certainly neglectable in comparison with what Google or IBM are pocketing.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites