Comments on: Open Source Business Strategy: About the Open Source Whole Product Concept

By: online dating victims

online dating victims — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:46:29 +0000

I wanted to make sure i commented on this subject.
I am enjoying your dicussion.

By: Roberto Galoppini

Roberto Galoppini — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:23:21 +0000

Hi David,

actually I think your open source honey blender adds some salt to the discussion. So said, I agree that taxonomies are of little help for users and customers, but can help to drive interesting discussion among open source vendors, though.

James putting VCs into the equation, as I originally suggested, brought on the table aspects that do matter for ens users as well: sustainability is key for everybody.

By: David Dennis

David Dennis — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:37:34 +0000

Hi Roberto,

I tend to agree with Glyn that would could be rapidly approaching taxonomy overload, if we haven’t reached it already. I recall saying something similar last time we met in San Francisco.

Nonetheless, after reading James’ Bees & Trees, I couldn’t help adding another type of bee-orientied classification.

I called it The Open Source Honey Blender:

http://www.gwos.com/blog/?p=132

By: GroundWork Blog » Blog Archive » The Open Source Honey Blender

GroundWork Blog » Blog Archive » The Open Source Honey Blender — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:21:24 +0000

[...] to the thoughtful posts of Roberto Galoppini About the Open Source Whole Product Concept, I’ve just finished reading the latest, version 2 of James Dixon’s The Bees and the [...]

By: Roberto Galoppini

Roberto Galoppini — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:39:45 +0000

Hi Taurus, nice to hear back from you. Funambol is a good example of an open core giving away a full-functioning piece of (open source) code, yet offering to a different target proprietary add-ons. I have been talking about how they segment their customer/user base few times, addressing only the top of the ‘pyramid’, have a look at it.

Ciao Glyn, I agree with you that theories and definitions are useful only if we resolve name confusion in favor of customers. Today’s blog post was aimed at starting a conversation around the whole product concept, though.

Hi p-brane, an open source project itself doesn’t make a ‘product’, hence the need to describe the process to create around it all complements needed to make a ‘product’. I will think about use a different term from the one picked by James.

By: p-brane

p-brane — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:32:56 +0000

I would like to encourage you to find another term since the set of ordered letters p-r-o-d-u-c-t-i-z-a-t-i-o-n does not spell an actual word. Something is or is not a product. The act of taking raw materials and through some process that results in a product can be called: manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, building, etc. As a product manager, I’ve grown to really loathe the overuse of this non-word.

By: Glyn Moody

Glyn Moody — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:32:23 +0000

I do worry this is all getting out of hand, what with “core” and “beekeeper” and who knows what. Do we really need this level of theorising?

By: Tarus Balog

Tarus Balog — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:28:34 +0000

I’m a bit lost here. Don’t commercial software companies exist by keeping their code “secret”? What’s open source about a company whose business strategy is based on secret code?

In the examples you give, they are just commercial software companies using a small open source piece as a free API. They use the term “open source” to market themselves, nothing more.