Tagged: business models Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 4:02 pm on July 2, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , business models, , , , , , , StephenOGrady   

    Open Core is not a Business Model 

    Apple core duoOpen Core is the New Dual Licensing Model” is the last of a chain of interesting posts against or in favor of open core, coming from different realm of experience: the analyst guy Stephen O’Grady, the free software evangelist Simon Phipps, the hacker Brian Aker and last but not least the entrepreneur MÃ¥rten Mickos.

    Let’s dig now deeper into what is open core to business, and why it is not a business model. (More …)

    • Stefano Maffulli 10:28 pm on July 3, 2010 Permalink

      Funambol is not Open Core as many people intend it. The whole open source package is feature complete and useful in enterprise as is, while only the portal (and some API that are used by it) of Funambol Carrier Edition is not open source. Funny enough, none of the customers have bought it either (see the list http://www.funambol.com/solutions/mobilesyncservices.php).

  • Roberto Galoppini 11:41 am on April 11, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Beekeeper, business models, , , , ,   

    Open Source Business Strategy: Feedback on the Beekeeper Model Revisited 

    James DixonPentaho Chief Technology Officer – about two years ago wrote the “Beekeeper model“, telling the word about how open source firms writing the majority of the code make business.

    Now James released the first draft of the new version asking for comments, and I am glad to give him some feedback again.

    (More …)

    • James Dixon 2:39 pm on April 11, 2009 Permalink

      These are very good points Roberto, I’ll try to incorporate them into draft 2.



  • Roberto Galoppini 9:23 am on January 24, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Björn Lundell, business models, Cédric Thomas, Diego Lo Giudice, , Jean-Noel de Galzain, , , Open Source Strategies, Open Source Sweden, QualiPSo, , Wallix   

    Open Source Acquisitions: Sun, MySQL Merger. Open Source Sinergy? 

    While Sun Microsystems was buying MySQL for $1 billion, Rome was guesting the international conference “Boosting innovation and growth by fostering Open Source Software trust and quality”, organized by the EC funded project QualiPSo.

    Having the conference among its key themes defining business models to facilitate the use of OSS in the industry, the “Business models and strategies” session – run on the 17th of January, one day after the acquisition – was definitely the right place to ask forum speakers about the deal.

    I asked the panelists an opinion about the largest open source software deal ever, and Björn Lundell, chairman of the Open Source Sweden, an industrial Swedish Open Source Association, congratulated with Mårten Mickos, expressing a positive opinion on the deal for the open source market. Basically the first round of impressions was spent to congratulate with the hero of the day. At that point I posed a specific question about the distribution channel, asking them how the merge operation could affect it.

    Cédric Thomas, CEO of the OW2 Consortium, said that every small firm, open or not, at a certain point has to find its way to the market, and probably it was great time for MySQL to get sales and financial backing to better deploy its value. On the same line of thought was also Jean-Noel de Galzain, CEO of Wallix.

    I was quite disappointed by the fact that none was mentioning how the Sun’s distribution channel is organized by now, and I asked the Forrester’s analyst to tell something about how Sun’s open source business model could change.

    Diego Lo Giudice, Principal Consultant at Forrester, said that he couldn’t anticipate Sun’s press releases on the subject, but talking about business models he stated that it’s all about making money, and a check of 1 billion it’s a lot of money!

    Talking about open source business models many people and also analysts mention only specific aspects, like licensing, paying little attention on how pieces of the business fit (or not) together. The result is that the company’s strategy, or how a specific firm differentiates itself and deals with the competition, is not effectively described, neither understood.

    Last week during the Sun Partner Advantage Executive Summit, organized to share with top partners Sun’s vision for growth, Jonathan Schwartz early morning on the 16th of January sent a physical letter to all partners:

    Good morning! It is my extreme pleasure to start your day with some truly exciting news.

    Earlier this morning, Sun made a strategic mode designed to provide myriad opportunities for partners and the market at large. We announced our intention to acquire MySQL AB, one of the world’s fastest-growing and most popular databases. [..]

    Sun and its partners soon will enjoy unprecedented access to a massive new set of customers. In short, the MySQL database is deployed across every major operating system, hardware platform, geography, industry and application type, and we are committed to working with you to help it gain even greater relevance in the marketplace.

    What’s more, we think our operational, sales and financial backing, along with our global services strength, will enhance MySQL’s value proposition to customers by giving them peace of mind to deploy it at scale enterprise — on whichever platforms they so choose.

    Anil Gadre later discussed the news with partners, and I would have liked to attend to. While it is pretty clear that Sun is consolidating its position as the largest open source contributor, it is still unclear how Sun’s partners will eventually take advantage of a new set of customers in the database arena. Looking at how MySQL is doing business now, and who and how add value to the ‘M’ in LAMP all over the world, I see many unanswered questions on the table.

    Open Source Franchising or not, Sun has to work a lot with its channel to make this move worth well more than the price paid.

    • Carlo Daffara 10:11 am on January 25, 2008 Permalink

      There is a strong difference in selling approach between Sun and MySQL. While Sun traditionally leverages its hardware business to provide complete service packages (hw+sw+support), MySQL traditionally leverages its strong developers community to monetize mission critical deployments from the bottom. I suspect that Sun may have bought MySQL mainly to prevent competitors reaching it first (and potentially killing it in the process); this way the advantage of a lower price per database deployed can continue to be converted into preserved hardware margins. The idea that MySQL can be converted into a “grid database” in a way similar to Amazon’s SimpleDB is not convincing, and may make sense only if Sun intend to relaunch its grid initiative (at lower prices) offering the supported MySQL, OpenSolaris and apache in preconfigured means.

    • Roberto Galoppini 12:05 pm on January 25, 2008 Permalink

      I agree with you Carlo, there is a huge difference between the two distribution channels. Sun’s channel today is delivering products plus standardized support services, while MySQL’s ecosystem deploy web applications tailored on specific users’ needs. As a result I see little chance for cross-selling opportunities, consider that MySQL runs on a lot of platform, as also Jonathan Schwartz highlighted.

      About the grid-database it could possibly happen and make sense, but it is not going to help partners anyway.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc