James Dixon keeps updating his “Beekeeper model“, analyzing and discussing open source business strategies, now giving a closer view at the importance of the productization process.
Commercial open source, as James states, exists just to deliver software as whole product: an out-of-the-box, easy-to-consume, packaged-and-delivered, risk-free solution.
Italian whole organic product, by fensterbme
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:
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.
I wanted to make sure i commented on this subject.
I am enjoying your dicussion.
James Dixon – Pentaho 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.
These are very good points Roberto, I’ll try to incorporate them into draft 2.
Thanks,
James
online dating victims, 
Roberto Galoppini, 
Tarus Balog 2:28 pm on April 24, 2009 Permalink
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.
Glyn Moody 4:32 pm on April 24, 2009 Permalink
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?
p-brane 4:32 pm on April 24, 2009 Permalink
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.
Roberto Galoppini 6:39 pm on April 24, 2009 Permalink
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.