Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)

[Richard Gaskin]

David, I think you may have answered the "How do we pay the piper?" 
question here:
> I'd beg to differ with Lynn that this stuff is only for the big boys - like
> Adobe, IBM, Google or Yahoo. The developers of Base Camp have a good
> business, they build upon the developer community they created with Ruby on
> Rails. They get a lot of work. Nor did they need to raise heaps of cash to
> get there. If I had a vote - I'd at least be seriously exploring moving over
> to that sort of model - together with dual licensing for companies wanting
> closed source solutions for their customers.
> 
> Business models are adapting to these new forces, and while they are not
> sorted out yet - where there is dirt there is money.

The folks at Base Camp have visibility, but do revenues match?  It isn't 
hard for any services company to be booked to capacity, but the 
challenge with services is that revenue is capped by the number of hours 
in a day.  The relative ROI for software products is much higher, with 
no human resources constraint on revenue.

But your note reminds me of one overwhelming success:  MySQL.

I have to admit that it would have been inconceivable for a small 
organization like MySQL to get a larger installed base than Sybase and 
Oracle without their dual licensing.

A very carefully chosen license (hopefully more clearly communicated 
than MySQL's) might well be the ticket for Rev.

Enforcement is a difficult thing with dual licensing, and I'm not sure 
how one would go about it when the source is freely available without 
relying primarily on litigation.  Litigation is perhaps the most costly 
form of license enforcement. :)

Some open source projects only make the source available if you apply 
for it, which may be optimal since it introduces an accountability 
otherwise absent when sources are freely downloadable.

But you may be onto something here.  A dual license explodes the market 
for services, while protecting revenue with the market segment that's 
most profitable anyway, the commercial developer.

With development tools like Rev support costs are disproportionately 
higher than with simpler consumer apps, and costs to support 
professionals tends to be much lower than for less experienced 
developers.  This means that under the current model Media customers are 
the most expensive sale with the lowest ROI, making the segment worth 
addressing solely on the hope of numbers large enough to offset the costs.

But under a dual license, those looking for free stuff simply don't get 
support from the company, and those who need support would pay for it 
directly.  Low-end customers looking for support would turn to things 
like this list, where consultants are motivated to provide support for 
free for the visibility.

So a dual license might well preserve the highest-ROI customers while 
trimming the lowest-ROI, all the while exploding market share beyond 
what even a million-dollar marketing budget could hope to accomplish for 
a purely proprietary product.

Hmmmm.....  Thanks for posting that, David.  Much to think about....

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com