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.
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.