Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Business Case For Open Source

1,120 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

The Business Case For Open Source

  1. 1. The Business Case for Open Source Oliver Steele May 4, 2005
  2. 2. Contribution Status  Metrics  Contributors  Contributions  Related projects 2
  3. 3. Customer value: Closed-source model ! Value of a customer: ! Revenue ! Market feedback ! Reference ! Closed source model: conversion is a bottleneck for value ! Review – prospects may not say why they stopped the eval, especially in an unguided evaluation ! Reference – Only customers are referenceable Laszlo Systems, Inc. 3
  4. 4. User value: Open-source model ! Open source distinguishes between users and customers ! Open source model: ! Revenue: open source model increases the pool of evaluators, length of time during which a prospect can convert – but decreases chance that any individual prospect will convert ! Review: non-customers and unfunded developers provide a larger pool for market feedback feedback ! Reference: Referenceable users > referenceable customers ! Other values of increased user base ! External contributions ! External evangelism Laszlo Systems, Inc. 4 4
  5. 5. User contributions ! Positive feedback loops increase pool size for conversion ! Increased market feedback ! More developers – remove revenue conversion as a bottleneck for market feedback ! Grain of salt – sampling bias from nonpaying customers ! Increased marketing ! External contributors have an interest in the success of the project ! External marketing contributions are more credible than internal marcom ! Removal of revenue conversion as a bottleneck for deployments Laszlo Systems, Inc. 5 5
  6. 6. Contribution Sequence Program management Project management Event organization Technical leadership Event participation Feature design Degree of engagement Books Feature implementation Technical articles Feature review ! White papers Code review ! References* ! Vendor integration ! Demos ! Component contributions Market feedback* ! Bug fixes !Public response* ! Bug fix verification ! Blog postings ! Bug reporting Marketing Development Contributions Contributions * Referenceable applications, market feedback, and effective response to public critiques can’t effectively be accomplished in-house even with infinite resources. Laszlo Systems, Inc. 6 6
  7. 7. Development Resources ! Activities above the line support activities below the line ! Closed development requires direct funding of activities below the line ! Open development requires (less) funding of activities above the line ! Bold items are active Laszlo Systems, Inc. 7 7
  8. 8. Enabling Contributors Marketing Development ! Program management ! Project management ! Incentive programs ! Technical leadership ! Collateral ! Incentive programs ! Data sheets ! Community infrastructure ! Logo program ! Mailing lists ! ! Promotion ! ! Wiki ! Articles ! Code exchange ! Blog entries ! Recipe exchange ! Applications ! Build infrastructure ! Test infrastructure Laszlo Systems, Inc. 8 8
  9. 9. Proposed Contribution Metrics ! Downloads ! Forum activity (posters, new posters, posts) ! Mailing list activity (posters, new posters, posts) ! Site traffic (ol, laszlo, and a representative project) ! Technorati traffic ! Google ! Contributors ! Contributions ! External bug reporters ! External bug reports Laszlo Systems, Inc. 9
  10. 10. Proposed Next Steps ! Define adoption & contribution metrics ! Create community site ! Component exchange ! Searchable, commentable documentation ! Regular news and announcements ! Remove development barriers ! Build system ! Test system ! Directory structure ! Facilitate marketing contributions ! Describe platform features on web site ! Publicize commercial and non-commercial successes ! Create logo/branding program (if we can iron out the issues) Laszlo Systems, Inc. 10 10
  11. 11. Risks  Cannibalizing paid support  Expenses (managing, enabling external developers)*  Distraction * Although, many of these expenses are the same as those necessary to competently manage and enable internal developers too. 11

×