ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

11 open source business models

By | December 2, 2009, 5:00am PST

Summary: The great thing about open source is you don’t have to use just one business model. You can mix-and-match as you see fit.

Critics are always claiming open source lacks a business model.

(Let’s Make a Deal is back on TV, on CBS, starring Wayne Brady as Monty Hall. Cross-promotion is a great old business model, don’t you think?)

In fact it’s proprietary software that is lacking in imagination.  They have only one business model:

  1. EULA Ware — Give me money. Now go away. It doesn’t work? Go away. You want your money back? Read your EULA, and go away. You want to see the software? Go away.

This has the virtue of simplicity. People pay and you really aren’t required to give them anything. But it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. Don’t know what that is? You must work for a proprietary software company. (Go away.)

Telling people to pay you and go away worked for an amazingly long time. It sounds like it shouldn’t. It sounds a bit like theft. But software is a miracle, and for decades EULA Ware was the only model there was.

Open source companies, on the other hand, they have to use their imagination. They can’t feed people EULA Ware, so they must make money in other ways:

  1. Support Ware — Pay us money and we’ll support the software. We’ll answer your questions. Or we’ll try to. Over the phone, on the Web, whatever. Pay us enough and we’ll come over. Red Hat likes this business model.
  2. Product Ware – The software is free, you just buy the box it runs in. Android phones use this. So do some network routers. It’s number two, but with a bullet.
  3. Cloud Ware — Our software is in the clouds now. Pay us for what it does. The money goes into the cloud. Later it will rain on us. SugarCRM likes this business model.
  4. Project Ware — Need something done? We’ll do it with open source. Pay us for our work, and pay us for the project. IBM makes a ton on this business model.
  5. SaaS Ware — Our software is SaaSy. You can rent it, by the hour, by the month, by the user. This is wildly popular. Zoho uses it. So do many other companies.
  6. Ad Ware — This is a free version of SaaS Ware. You don’t pay anything, the advertiser pays instead. Heard of The Google? This is their primary business model. ZDNet also uses this business model.
  7. Sugar Daddy Ware — Our software has a sugar daddy. Firefox has Google. Eclipse has IBM. Open Office has Sun, or it did. So just use the stuff. Daddy will provide. We believe in daddy.
  8. Foundation Ware — Our software has a foundation. It has lots of sugar daddies. Want to be one? Linux runs this way. So does Apache. Not to mention Wikipedia.
  9. Beg Ware — Please give us money. We know you don’t have to. But give us money anyway. Lots of little projects use this business model. Or pretend to.
  10. Tchotchke Ware — Wanna buy a t-shirt? How about a bumper sticker? A pen?
  11. Let’s Make a Deal Ware — The programmers who wrote the software support it out of their own pockets until they can figure out something. Wordpress started this way. So did Drupal. Go by Sourceforge and you’ll find tons of folks still using this business model.

The great thing about open source is you don’t have to use just one business model. You can mix-and-match as you see fit. You can change. You can go to a more profitable model and buy a suit, or fork the code and go down the stack.

Or maybe you don’t see your business model here. Maybe you have one of your own. Care to tell us about it in the talkbacks? Whisper it in our ear. It will just be between us.

This is what freedom is about. It’s about having choices. You don’t have to go to Sand Hill Road to get into the software business. If they tell you to go away, go open source and in time maybe they’ll call you.

Then you can tell them to go away.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
38
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Pro=cd load, open=free-cloud
calgary.smo 29th Feb
Anyone want to be a slave to their dumb terminal? Keep reloading and fixing their computer? It was okay in the old days but now I need to be free. My new biz is SMO and the only way to do that is to have Chrome logged into all the social sites at once. MS has only the OS anymore. That will be non sequitur soon.
0 Votes
+ -
You are looking at it sideways.
cornpie 2nd Dec 2009
It's never as simple as you make it seem. Things usually can't be broken into neat little lists which are really just stereo types.

From Wikipedia: Business Model:

"A business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value[1] - economic, social, or other forms of value."

So, software, weather it be open source or proprietary can't have a business model. It is software companies that have business models.

Further, the described business models have little to nothing to do with weather the product in question is open source or proprietary.

For example there is no reason why a vendor of proprietary software couldn't choose to use a support/produce/or cloud ware model. Weather they actually do or not is up to the company in question but the the chosen business model is independent of proprietary vs open source. Those terms govern licensing and weather or not you get to see the code - not (at least not directly) how the company is going to make money from the product.

And there are plenty of companies that use combinations of the models as well. For example provide a Eulaware product at a relatively low cost and then use a combination of the productware and supportware models to make their real/long term money. This happens all the time.

So don't assume that the entire proprietary software industry is made up of Microsoft and Oracle. It isn't. And the dividing lines are not so clear as you seem to think.
0 Votes
+ -
Cornpie is right
DanaBlankenhorn 2nd Dec 2009
There's a reason I used the satire tag on this.
0 Votes
+ -
Right in one.
Palmetto_CharlieSpencer Updated - 2nd Dec 2009
"Further, the described business models have little to nothing to do with weather the product in question is open source or proprietary."

Many of these models are in use with proprietary software. I've personally experienced closed source apps from companies using 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9. Heck, MS is offering versions of Office via the web. (What's the difference between 'Cloud ware' and 'Software as a service'?)

The way an enterprise raises money has no connection to the openness of its code. The assertion that proprietary software has only the EULA business model is as false as the assertion that open source lacks a model.
0 Votes
+ -
weather
Louis Ross Focke 2nd Dec 2009
I want to know what the weather has to do with this. Is it raining on EULA's or sleeting on Open source? Or is this still more satire?

LRF
0 Votes
+ -
It has to do
Palmetto_CharlieSpencer 2nd Dec 2009
with 'weather' you let a grammatical error prevent you from recognizing the validity of his content, or whether you want to nit-pick.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: 11 open source business models
edward polling Updated - 4th Jul
At some point people are going to demand, en masse, that a particular quality be ipad bag blog sutudeg education news and pclos hwdb provided. l
0 Votes
+ -
RE: 11 open source business models
zakkiromi Updated - 27th May 2011
You dont have to go to Sand Hill Road to get into the software business. If they tell you to go away, go open source and in time maybe theyll call you. k
0 Votes
+ -
RE: 11 open source business models
gaberdiye03 Updated - 21st Jun
@zakkiromi Many of these models are in use with proprietary software. I've personally experienced closed source pembe maske energy balance oyna oyunu moliva orjin krem tutune son nanomatik complex 41 new fx15 apps from companies using 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9. Heck, MS is offering versions of Office via the web. (What's the difference between 'Cloud ware' and 'Software as a service'?)

The way an enterprise raises money has no connection to the openness of its code. The assertion that proprietary software has only the EULA business model is as false as the assertion that open source lacks a model.
0 Votes
+ -
You forgot at least one.
wkulecz 2nd Dec 2009
You left off the O'reily model.

Make money selling books that document open source. Free Software Foundation uses this too, via GNU Press.
0 Votes
+ -
You're right
DanaBlankenhorn 2nd Dec 2009
I was thinking software, not publishing. But you're right. There are actually two business models being described in your note:

Book Ware -- Wanna buy a book to tell you how to use that software you just downloaded? It's got a nice animal on the cover.

Conference Ware -- Let's get together over "free" coffee. We charge you, we charge the vendor, and we squeeze the host city for everything we can. But you don't see that. All you see are our smiling faces.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't forget . . .
CodeCurmudgeon 2nd Dec 2009
The training scam: Even EULA and SAAS stuff nowadays is so poorly documented it's nearly (if not entirely) useless 'till you cough up the dough for a training class on how to use the stuff.
0 Votes
+ -
You Finally Did It
SwashbucklingCowboy 2nd Dec 2009
I've thought of unsubscribing from the RSS feed for a while now, as this blog has mostly been mindless cheerleading for OSS. But when I read "EULA Ware ? Give me money. Now go away." you finally did it. That line shows you either have no f'ing clue or you're just writing stupid **** for the sake of writing stupid ****.

Buh-bye...
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Buh-bye
wkulecz 2nd Dec 2009
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out!

Software is the only knowingly defective product that can be sold without fear of customer lawsuits.
0 Votes
+ -
It had to be that way
DanaBlankenhorn 2nd Dec 2009
It is impossible to make software perfect, as it grows more complex. It just is. That's why the EULA standard developed in the 1960s. IT was a way to limit IBM's liability, and it was necessary, because without the EULA contract IBM would have gone out of business and this industry would not have developed.
0 Votes
+ -
Pre-Ralph Nader
wkulecz 2nd Dec 2009
Before Ralph Nader, GM didn't get sued when some one died in a car crash.

Too much software is released with fatal bugs than can't perform its intended function, leaving the hapless customer no option but to buy the next version (or something else) and hope.

Open source is my first choice now because of this. I don't mind paying, but I hate being played for a sucker by software the promises way more than it delivers

IBM had a limited customer base in the 60s and they grew not because of the EULA but because they generally successfully addressed problems that arose to keep the customers happy and on-board.
0 Votes
+ -
Emphasis: had
Third of Five 7th Dec 2009
It may have had to be that way in the past, but it only has to be that way
now insofar as we accept the notion that it has to be that way. I do not
think a sea change is that unlikely, particularly with people getting more
tired of things on a computer not working as they should. At some point
people are going to demand, en masse, that a particular quality be
provided.
0 Votes
+ -
buh-bye
DanaBlankenhorn 2nd Dec 2009
You didn't notice the satire tag, did you? Oh, well. Have a nice day. Or have a bad day if that is your choice.
0 Votes
+ -
Poor defense, Dana
honeymonster 2nd Dec 2009
You cannot hide behind "but it is satire". Satire
only works when it is so thick that it cannot be
misunderstood. Otherwise it is just a lame excuse.

And this one is far too close to your agenda so it
is hard to tell. I too took it as a serious post.

If this is what satire look when you do it, please
don't.
0 Votes
+ -
If you're going to use a 'satire' tag,
Palmetto_CharlieSpencer 2nd Dec 2009
then it should apply to the entire article. Does this mean your suggested models for open source are also satirical suggestions?

Just because a speaker tells an opening joke doesn't mean it's open mike night at the comedy club.
0 Votes
+ -
Some other observations:
cornpie 2nd Dec 2009
Here is another business model: The "lite" version. A big example of this would be AVG anti-vius where you can get the basic version for free but they want you to pay for the more advanced versions. There are many examples of this.

And don't forget about the good old Shareware model: Try it for free and if you like it, pay.

And how about "I don't care ware": As in I don't care if the software that runs my phone is proprietary or open source. My support for that phone and everything about it comes from Verizon. From Verizon I can get Android, Windows Mobile or blackberry. I'm sure Verizon pays Microsoft for the use of Windows mobile but I don't know and don't care if they pay Google and Blackberry. When I compare phones, I'm comparing features etc and when I compare prices I'm looking at the total price of the phone. It makes no difference to me what percentage of that price goes to Microsoft and how much to Verizon. My deal is with Verizon. They are the ones I have the contract with and who provide my support.
0 Votes
+ -
Fun article, and true but...
DevGuy_z 2nd Dec 2009
The difference is cash flow. Except for IBM and Google (which is only very partially open source) there really isn't that much cash flow.

In some ways listing Google is suspect because while some of their stuff is open source the majority of it isn't. They give away what they can but not everything.
0 Votes
+ -
Or put more accurately...
daftkey 2nd Dec 2009
"They give away what they can but not everything. "

More like "they give away what they know nobody is willing to pay for, but not anything related to their core business."
* Lower or no licensing cost
* Avoids vendor lock-in
* Easy to customize
* Promotes collaboration and innovation among peers
* Achieves economies of scale with community-based sharing and contribution
* Supports project, team, and code transparency
* Allows wide range of uses with open licensing
Proprietary software allows you to protect your work from bigger competitors that can take it and sell it under their own established brand.

Using the GPL doesn't provide for enough protection. You're still showing how you made the program which is the majority of the work. The GPL allows for people to study your work and re-write it, which provides a ton of gray area for your competitors to work with.

The high profit margins are in proprietary software and for good reason. Giving away your source forces you to compete with companies that didn't have to make that same initial investment. If you were to come up with a top selling soda recipe you would be a fool to post it on the internet. You would just be allowing Coke and Pepsi to make their own knock-offs that you now have to compete with.
..as an end customer, you don't have to release any modifications you've made to the software for the internal use of your company..

Ask Google how they've fine-tuned MySQL to work for their search engine. The answer you get will probably be rather un-open-source-like.
I'm assuming you're talking about enterprise-level projects, not "loading office and quickbooks on the network of a local business".

Theoretically, you're right with some of your points, but some of your points really fall apart when looking at the real world:

* Lower or no licensing cost
I'm with you on this one, and I'll add that not only is there cost in licensing, but I've seen a number of situations where the software enforcement of the licensing has caused problems with systems (an ERP system failing to launch because a firewall port was closed, for a real-world example).

* Avoids vendor lock-in
True, but only because large open-source software is often supported by multiple vendors, or not supported at all if it has been highly customized in-house. The real issue is "software" lock-in, which unfortunately still exists to the same extent with Open Source software. The lock-in is mainly due to the cost of migration, of which licensing costs compose only a small part. Moving systems is expensive no matter what software you're on, and open-source doesn't dull that pain a whole lot.

* Easy to customize
While it's true you can customize software when you have the source code, at the enterprise level, you rarely need it (and in most cases, probably wouldn't want to touch it if you could!) Most commercial enterprise software (including Microsoft, SAP, Oracle) have built-in customization tools that allow EXTENSIVE customization without even considering touching the source.

In fact, for customization, proprietary software has three advantages:

1) In most cases, if the customization is carried out by a member of that vendor's partner network, it will follow guidelines allowing for easier upgrades to the core software. Modified open-source and homegrown apps break the most when companies either change strategy or grow, and most properly customized proprietary software manages to scale with the business much better.

2) It is actually faster and easier to customize software when the software was designed around controlled customization than trying to modify the software's source code. There are some amazing things I've seen done within days to a Dynamics GP system that would have taken months with Compiere.

3) Risk of failure is actually LOWER when customizing proprietary software using thier tools then when modifying source code. Problems with the customization rarely affect the core functionality of the software. Compare this, for example, to the catastrophic failure that could be had if you mess up the logic behind, say, keeping an audit trail when posting in an accounting system, just so you could tag a transaction with some extra information for reporting.

* Promotes collaboration and innovation among peers
Not sure how this is unique to open-source, either.

* Achieves economies of scale with community-based sharing and contribution
Except when customizing the open-source code and keeping those enhancements in-house (you know, the whole "business advantage" thing that people strive for with large IT projects)

* Supports project, team, and code transparency
..to other programmers. For someone like me who doesn't write code, but needs to understand a system so I can instruct programmers and other stakeholders on a project, it doesn't really do anything special.

* Allows wide range of uses with open licensing
Theoretically correct, but what it implies is pretty naive. I have yet to see a proprietary enterprise vendor tell customers "how" to use their software according to license (except, of course, how many users can use the system at the same time, or how many processors are allowed on the server - these are reasonable licensing limits).. Commercial vendors simply wouldn't survive if they did this.
0 Votes
+ -
Well Said
Aussie_Troll 1st Jan 2010
It's good to see more and more balanced people commenting, removing the zealotry and extremeism.

Thankyou for just looking and the reality and facts.
0 Votes
+ -
don't forget the proxy war model
gengstrand 2nd Dec 2009
In keeping with the writing style of the blog entry.

Proxy War Ware - Our software does what one of your competitors do only cheaper so buy us and promote the software to cut into their market share.

The NY Times wrote about this recently which you can read more about at http://ploneglenn.blogspot.com/2009/12/pros-and-cons-to-open-source-business.html
0 Votes
+ -
What a disingenuous article
connor33 2nd Dec 2009
Commercial software usually comes with support, and most of the models you listed can be used by proprietary developers.

You're probably upset over the NY Times article that showed how open source companies often go broke.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/technology/business-computing/30open.html?src=twt&twt=nytimestech&pagewanted=all

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

When you give away your source you allow you competitors to sell your work without putting in the same amount of effort. Bloggers like you have no idea as to how much work goes into creating software. Since you don't have to make your living selling software you don't have to deal with the realities of software economics. You get to stand on your soapbox and opine about the open source ideology you blindly follow.
0 Votes
+ -
LOL - We are SAP/MS shop primarily here...and have a very good suppor
TheBottomLineIsAllThatMatters Updated - 2nd Dec 2009
model. So good that SAP shipped a developer here and had Germany on the line to help us with a project, MS provided the same thing when we asked. So the model described above doesn't apply here for us. Could be just a crappy software vendor, but that cuts across all models.
0 Votes
+ -
You put your finger dead on it.
xuniL_z 2nd Dec 2009
This particular blogger cannot post without framing his blogs as open source vs. closed source (normally he restricts it to Microsoft specifically), a story of good vs evil.
I don't know about anyone else, but that story has done nothing to help open source, obviously, and it's just simply so 20th century and tedious and lame. The lies, about closed souce not providing support....totally disingenuous as you said...

He is apparently totally blind to the fact that anyone can start a business, at least in the U.S. And those who put up the capital to build a system, test that system, perform ongoing maintenance on that system, supply support for that system are putting themselves at risk and their reward can only come from a demand from those who find their product worthwhile. It's the same system that is in place for every other product, and service, on the face of the earth.

The other way around actually costs more in the long run because you can't write off service fees and free software. They hook you and give you the bait and switch when you buy these open source packages. Next thing you know to scale beyond what you have, and you realize you need to, it's suddenly going to cost you...for the "premium" version at 50.00 per head per year (do the math on that for 10 years with no writeoffs) and support is going to be a hefty sum per year and you realize you need to get everyone inhouse on gigabit speeds and triple your internet throughput.
Head to head, you get more value from buying your system and writing it off for 5 years and getting great integration and software that can drive your business, not just give you a small set of applications that cannot come close to modeling the business goals admin lays out.
Please.
0 Votes
+ -
laughed out loud
urbandk 2nd Dec 2009
about Sugar Daddy Ware. Very funny. Some people can't take a joke in here...
There are plenty of software developers who develop FOSS without pay, just
for fun. And there are a growing number of developers who get paid for their
work (e.g. at IBM, Sun, Intel, etc.). Who pays their salaries and expenses? Does
FOSSS business models mean that xxxWare customers pay too much for their
xxxWare? You have to finance the FOSS part somehow.

Or does it mean that people who don't use the FOSS product or xxxWare pay
the FOSS anyway?
"Ad Ware ? This is a free version of SaaS Ware. You don?t pay anything, the
advertiser pays instead."
Well, who pays to the advertisers?

Is open source business which involves payed developers eventually unethical?
0 Votes
+ -
and who pays the advertisers
Aussie_Troll 1st Jan 2010
YOU DO, with everything you buy, and what are you paying for? Nothing really, But it's you that pays, the consumer.

The only difference is that the company makes profit from advertising, not by providing high quality of service, the more you see the adds the more money they get.

So you not paying to quality of product, or for software development, you are paying for a minimum service that is little more than push marketing.

I personally would rather pay up front and know what im getting, and know there is a massive skillforce able to maintain my systems, supported by a multi-billion dollar company that has a proven record of success and customer service.

Who are well know for creating reliable product that commerce and industry have adopted like no other product.

A company that provides product and a reasonable cost, and a small percentage of the total cost of the computer that requires it to run.

A company large enough that vendors and peripheral manufactures will develop products specifically targeted at that platform.

As they know there is a vital and highly viable market for their products.

MS also make it very easy for third party companies to use windows development help and application integration that FOSS "models" seem to have not been able to grasp.

The GPL seems to be the largest restriction to the advancement of any FOSS business models.
RMS and his GPL have turned masses of developers and wouldbe developers away from FOSS/OSS/GNU/GPL or whatever it is this week.

Normal people see RMS attacking other developers, even attacking Magel or Linus and normal people start to consider that the FUD generated by the masses of dinner table experts who never seem to code tell us about MS.

FOSS/OSS (I typo'd "SOS" might be appropriate).

FOSS has been around for many many years now why has it still not been able to find viable models compatable with business and enterprise yet ?

IMHO, the answer can be found with RMS and the highly restrictive GPL and the elavation of software development method to a moralistic religion. With it's very own Jihad on MS.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: 11 open source business models
mediaspiderbill 3rd Dec 2009
I personally think we are subject to the rhetoric that rides along with all these discussions.
I my humble opinion, there is no right or wrong software, only software that use useful to whatever it is that you do to earn a living.
It should be intuitive enough that no one from Germany has to come over to support it, and work within the business model you set up when you went into business. (even if that was before computers)
My company Media Spiders USA.LLC uses multiple open source technologies to create online document archives. This is mostly because in our sector of industry it doesn't make fiscal sense to pay "tribute" to the software overlords. Our model is to help companies collaborate online reduce mis-filed documents and create efficiencies by sharing what they already have produced.
We compete with mostly file cabinets, shelves and personal assistants that people figure they are going to pay anyway so why change? That is why it is crucial to keep costs down. Just my opinion.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: 11 open source business models
twaynesdomain Updated - 5th Dec 2009
I think a couple of things based on the responses to date and the original article.

1. Satire tag aside, I never even looked for it; it was pretty obvious to one with a reasonable level of understanding of the language. To me this article is like one of those questions where you can't answer it until after someone else does, and then you say to yourself "Yeah, I knew that, why couldn't I say it?" e.g. a good set of reminders with a dash of a different viewpoint on the subject. Good going.

#2, having just returned from a long hospital stay, the responses appear to be saying a lot more about the authors than responding to the articles. I admit to being that way myself on too many occasions and IMO It's one of the very real problems with not only technological matters but life in general these days. "Learn from History" has gone right over a lot of people's heads.
Like the egotistic announcement that one reader is leaving: Big deal - I'm not here because I give a fig what that reader does, I'm here because I feel like reading what Dana et al have to say and of course comparing my own views to it, in addition to hopefully taking away anything from a chuckle to a grimace to some very good information I didn't previously have, all of which have happened. If/when I do "leave", I hope I have the good sense to just GO and not try to pull a public scandal sounding post out of my butt in the process.
0 Votes
+ -
Pro=cd load, open=free-cloud
calgary.smo 29th Feb
Anyone want to be a slave to their dumb terminal? Keep reloading and fixing their computer? It was okay in the old days but now I need to be free. My new biz is SMO and the only way to do that is to have Chrome logged into all the social sites at once. MS has only the OS anymore. That will be non sequitur soon.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix