Published on

Slides of my talk at DITEDI event "business on open"

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Il valore economico del Software Open Source Carlo Daffara European Working Group on Libre Software CloudWeaversBusiness on Open - 2012
  2. 2. Il valore economico del Software Open Source (per lEuropa) Carlo Daffara European Working Group on Libre Software Conecta ResearchBusiness on Open - 2012
  3. 3. “The GPL effectively prevents profit-making firms from using any of thecode since all derivative products must also bedistributed under the GPL license” (Evans, D.,in “Government policy toward open sourcesoftware”, R.W.Hahn, editor, AEI-BrookingsJCRS)Business on Open - 2012
  4. 4. “[..] the aim of free software is not to enable ahealthy business on software but rather tomake it even impossible to make anyincome on software as a commercialproduc t.” (Thomas Lutz, Microsoftrepresentative at Tunis WSIS, 2005)Business on Open - 2012
  5. 5. “Open-source software is deliberatelydeveloped outside of market mechanisms... thenonmarket coordination mechanism fails tocontribute to the creation of value indevelopment, as opposed to the commercialsoftware market. [It] does not generate profit,income, jobs or taxes … In the end, thedeveloped software cannot be used togenerate profit.” (Kooths S., Lagenfurth M.“Open Source-Software: An EconomicAssessment” University of Muenster, MuensterInstitute for Computational Economics)Business on Open - 2012
  6. 6. “[Open Source] ... suppresses qualitycompetition between OS firms and restrictstheir output much as an agreement to suppresscompetition on quality would. .. We find thatthe first-best solution in our model is to taxOS firms and grant tax breaks to[proprietar y sw] firms .” (Engelhardt,Maurer, 2010 Goldman School of PublicPolicy)Business on Open - 2012
  7. 7. “Rail travel at high speed is notpossible because passengers, unable tobreathe, would die of asphyxia.” Dr. DionysusLardner (1793-1859), Professor of NaturalPhilosophy and Astronomy at UniversityCollege, London.“Heavier-than-air flying machines areimpossible.” Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca.1895, British mathematician and physicistBusiness on Open - 2012
  8. 8. “...First we listed the major open sourceproducts. Then we looked at the commercialequivalents. Next we looked at the average costof both the open source products and thecommercial products, giving us a netcommercial cost. We then multiplied the netcost of the commercial product by our opensource shipping estimates.” (Jim Johnson,Standish group)Business on Open - 2012
  9. 9. ● Pierre Audoin Consultants: mercato complessivo OSS di 8B€ nel 2008● HP: 2.5B$ in Linux-related consulting in 2003● IBM: 4.5B$ in OSS-related revenues in 2005● ...OSS PBX market: 1.2B$● La maggior parte delle revenues da OSS non viene da aziende OSS● Il mercato stesso e difficile da misurareBusiness on Open - 2012
  10. 10. Business on Open - 2012
  11. 11. Business on Open - 2012
  12. 12. ● Overall IT spending estimate for Europe: 492B€● 24% hardware● software and services market: 374B€● software market alone: 244B€ Business on Open - 2012
  13. 13. Quanto OSS ce nel codice?Business on Open - 2012
  14. 14. ● “On average, 30% of implemented functionalities is based on reused OSS code” (Sojer M., Henkel J. Code reuse in Open Source Software Development)● Gartner: 26% del codice installato e OSS● Koders survey, 2010: 44% del codice e Open SourceBusiness on Open - 2012
  15. 15. ● Black Duck, analisi di codici proprietari di grandi dimensioni (media di 700MB codice): 22% e OSS, fino a 80% dei nuovi sviluppi evitati tramite OSS● “sampling continues to find that between 30% and 70% of code submitted is .. in the form of OSS components and commercial libraries” (Veracode, “State of Software Security Report volume 3”, 2011)● Utilizzo OSS aumenta con il tempo → uso medio negli ultimi 5 anni: 35%Business on Open - 2012
  16. 16. Business on Open - 2012
  17. 17. Che risparmio porta luso di OSS?(Abts, Boehm, Bailey Clark “Empiricalobservations on COTS software integrationeffort based on the initial COCOTS calibrationdatabase”)Business on Open - 2012
  18. 18. 35% di riuso porta a un risparmio in costi del31%: 75B€/annoBusiness on Open - 2012
  19. 19. “Figures suppor t the idea that FOSSsolu tions are more innovative thanproprietar y ones: indeed, in all the threedimensions, experts’ evaluations are higher forFOSS than for proprietary software. … FOSSsoftware not only show different levels ofinnovativity, but, as far as, new to the worldproducts are concerned, they are also shapedby different innovation processes: radicalinnovation in the FOSS vs. incrementalinnovation in proprietary field.” (Rossi,Lorenzi, “Innovativeness of Free/Open Sourcesolutions”)Business on Open - 2012
  20. 20. "The growing rate, or the number of functionsadded, was greater in the open source projectsthan in the closed source projects. Thisindicates that the OSS approach may be ableto provide more features over time than byusing the closed source approach. (Paulson,Succi, Eberlein “An Empirical Study of OpenSource and Closed Source SoftwareProducts”)Business on Open - 2012
  21. 21. "Findings indicate that community Open Sourceapplications show a slower growth ofmaintenance effort over time.” (Capra,Francalanci, Merlo “The Economics ofCommunity Open Source Software Projects:An Empirical Analysis of MaintenanceEffort”)“The fourth law of software evolution,implying constant incremental effort, might beviolated (Koch “Evolution of Open SourceSoftware Systems – A Large-ScaleInvestigation”)Business on Open - 2012
  22. 22. E se un progetto va male?● Jones :“the cancellation rate for applications in the 10,000 function point size range is about 31%. The average cost for these cancelled projects is about $35,000,000”● Standish group, 2009: “24% of projects are canceled before deployment”● Sauer & Cuthbertson, Oxford university survey, 2003: 10%● Dynamic Markets Limited: “25%+ of all software and services projects are canceled before completion”Business on Open - 2012
  23. 23. Tramite la riduzione di effort, staffing e duratail 35% di codice OSS porta a una riduzione nelfailure rate del 2% → 4.9B€/annoBusiness on Open - 2012
  24. 24. (Mohagheghi, Conradi, Killi and Schwarz “AnEmpirical Study of Software Reuse vs. Defect-Density and Stability”)Business on Open - 2012
  25. 25. “While IBM initially contributed software that wasvalued at 40M$, external contributors to the projectcreated software representing a value of roughly1.7B$ over the examined period.” (Spaeth,Stuermer, von Krogh “Enabling knowledge creationthrough outsiders: towards a push model of openinnovation”)Business on Open - 2012
  26. 26. ● Costo di mantenimento dellOSS sostanzialmente più basso (Capra E., Francalanci C., Merlo F., “The Economics of Community Open Source Software Projects: An Empirical Analysis of Maintenance Effort”)● Jones and Bonsignour: codice tradizionale costa 2K$ per function point, shared/codeveloped 1.2K$/FP● Il codice introdotto da un progetto OSS porta ad una riduzione dei costi di maintenance del 14%Business on Open - 2012
  27. 27. 14% riduzione in maintenance anddevelopment costs → 34B€/annoBusiness on Open - 2012
  28. 28. Deshpande, Riehle “The Total Growth of Open Source”Business on Open - 2012
  29. 29. Business on Open - 2012
  30. 30. Valore totale del risparmio dovuto al softwareOSS: 114B€/annoBusiness on Open - 2012
  31. 31. ● Effetti di secondo ordine?● Sappiamo che I risparmi vengono reinvestiti:Business on Open - 2012
  32. 32. Business on Open - 2012
  33. 33. ● “The principal results from this econometric analysis are: 1) the measured output contribution of computerization in the short- run are approximately equal to computer capital costs, 2) the measured long-run contributions of computerization are significantly above computer capital costs (a factor of five or more in point estimates), and 3) that the estimated contributions steadily increase as we move from short to long differences. (“Computing productivity: firm-level evidence”, erik brynjolfsson, lorin m. Hitt; Review of Economics and Statistics, November, 2003 )Business on Open - 2012
  34. 34. Effetto del reinvestimento in IT, modellolineare su 3 anni → 342B€/annoBusiness on Open - 2012
  35. 35. Revenue per employee rating (FLOSS firms vs. Industry average) Computer Equipment 182% Software consultancy and supply 427% Services (excl. software cons. and supply) 211% Manufacturing (excl. computer equip.) 136% Other 204% ALL: 221% Source: MERITBusiness on Open - 2012
  36. 36. Revenue ratio: FLOSS firms vs. Industry average (FLOSS firms vs. Industry average) Computer Equipment 1115% Software consultancy and supply 262% Services (excl. software cons. and supply) 177% Manufacturing (excl. computer equip.) 4501% Other 1045% ALL: 758% Source: MERITBusiness on Open - 2012
  37. 37. Source: Venice International University TEDIS studyBusiness on Open - 2012
  38. 38. DrupalCon 2010, CopenhagenBusiness on Open - 2012
  39. 39. ● Innovazione dagli end-users:Business on Open - 2012
  40. 40. Business on Open - 2012
  41. 41. “[non-code] outside contributions aresignicant. Open Cascade estimates that theyrepresent about 20 % of the value of thesoftware. Matra Datavision had to injectapproximately 2M€ per year to continue todevelop its tools. In 2000, the company limitedthe costs to 1.2 million.” (Jullien, Clement-Fontaine, Dalle “New Economic Models, NewSoftware Industry Economy”)Business on Open - 2012
  42. 42. Con il software proprietario, l86% del SW spending va fuori Europa – e riduce i margini delle aziende locali Ecosystem Revenues compared with MS revenues by partner type Product- Services- Retail Logistics Logistics-Oriented Oriented Oriented Value-Added Partner Partner (e.g., LargeMicrosoft Partner (e.g., Large Partner (e.g., Partner (e.g., (e.g., VAR) Retail Electronics Account Reseller) ISV, IHV) SI, Hoster) Store) $1 $4.09 $2.44 $2.30 $2.70 $2.93 1 24% 40.9% 43.5% 37% 34%Source: Partner Opportunity in the Microsoft Ecosystem, IDC 2011; analysis by Daffara Business on Open - 2012
  43. 43. ● Parte speculare del modello: “pull” adoption● Più difficile da valutare – grande variabilità● Sui desktop (per migrazioni di successo) la riduzione del TCO va dal 10% al 25% (media) fino al 50% (for high-uniformity environments)● Lo spostamento verso applicazioni platform- independent cambia leconomia (riduzione lock-in e migration costs)Business on Open - 2012
  44. 44. ● La valutazione dei costi reali (tangibili e intangibili) e stata fatta nel corso del progetto Europeo COSPA, su un parco di diverse migliaia di installazioni – anche grazie a uno strumento di valutazione della produttività dei singoli operatori tramite sampling anonimizzato (installato con il consenso dei sindacati e dei lavoratori)Business on– Open SourceItClub FVG Open - 2012
  45. 45. Business on Open - 2012
  46. 46. Business on Open - 2012
  47. 47. Business on Open - 2012
  48. 48. From: "The future of computing: indispensable or unsustainable?" Royal Academy of Engineering, 2011Business on Open - 2012
  49. 49. Business on Open - 2012
  50. 50. Business on Open - 2012
  51. 51. Business on Open - 2012
  52. 52. Business on Open - 2012
  53. 53. Business on Open - 2012
  54. 54. Business on Open - 2012
  55. 55. Business on Open - 2012
  56. 56. Grazie per lattenzione Carlo Daffara Twitter: @cdaffaraBusiness on Open - 2012