Open Source, Free Markets, and Forking

Slashdot pointed me to a great story on forking in open source projects: how and why developers branch off from the "trunk" of a development project. I've been thinking a fair amount of the value of a fork (the kind that splits open source communities - not the kind you eat with :-), especially in light of OpenOffice.org.

OO.o is somewhat analagous to Mozilla (under Netscape's and AOL's direction): bloatware, with every possible feature one could want. So, Blake Ross forked it and created FireFox, as Wired recently reported. Today, we're the beneficiaries of Ross' lack of conformity - FireFox is much, much better than Mozilla ever was.

Back to OO.o. Why not fork it? Today, Sun does 95% of the development, but lacks the resources to take on Microsoft Office with single-minded determination. The open source community, in parallel, lacks any real incentive to take up the code (both because most don't care much for office suites and because Sun's licensing scheme ensures that they own all modifications through the JCA). Besides, the learning curve for familiarizing oneself with the code makes casual, 'drive-by' code contributions somewhat difficult.

So why doesn't some company (or a community, if one can be found) take up the OO.o banner, fork it, and offer a stripped-down version that evades OO.o's bloatware problem? I don't much like Apple's new iWorks suite - it's a bit too stripped down - but I think the idea is generally good. Someone could develop a lightning fast version of OO.o, sell it retail for $49.95, and make a good business out of it.

Wouldn't be good community practice, you say? Maybe. But in my view, forking, as the first link above identifies, encourages competition. When a project is bogging down or is otherwise not up to a class of users' preferences, it should be forked. Forking drives innovation through competition. OO.o would be the better for the fork.

Open Source Innovation

It may well be true that the open source development community innovates. I'm inclined to think that it does, though not always in the areas that I as a lay computer user would like. One can't have everything.

However, what increasingly strikes me as gospel truth is that open source companies almost universally fail to innovate. Take Red Hat, for example. Red Hat, darling of the open source commercial world, makes cheap operating systems. They're stable. They're secure. But the only thing that Red Hat can claim credit for is the cost (which, really, has nothing to do with Red Hat, and everything to do with the GPL).

A new crop of open source startups is seeking to replicate Red Hat's success by making software at all layers of the "stack" cheaper....but not necessarily better.

If this is the best we can do, let's give up. Now. Yawn.

Maybe we've peaked in the technology industry. Maybe there's simply nothing new to develop, so the best we can do is to commoditize that which we've already created. Certainly, IT departments everywhere have more IT than they actually use. Maybe the next 5-10 years will simply be a time for milking investments already made....

However, I think there's actually something different going on, and it has more to do with a lack of creativity than with any lack of new things to develop. Red Hat and other open source vendors seem to think Wal-Mart is the ideal we should aim for: sell lots of bland things very cheaply. Matthew Szulik, CEO of Red Hat (and generally a great and intelligent guy), says so here. In other words, turn software into Dell hardware. (Fortunately, Dell's support seems to be better than its commodity hardware, which has a very short lifetime, in my experience.)

Why would we resign ourselves to this bleak existence? Life is too short to hang out with lame people - why should we capitulate and lug around lame computing systems?

Apple gets this. Yes, they also get limited market share, but had OSX been around when Windows was growing up, that historical accident wouldn't have happened. Apple feels that owning the complete customer experience is important - after using Macs for the past two years, I'm a convert. I know I could buy a computing box from someone else for cheaper, but why would I waste money on trash? We don't envy the Pinto-drivers of the world - why are we so willing to settle for garbage in our mobile devices, laptops, and desktops? We spend much more time with them than we do our cars....

Anyway, my complaint. It's an increasingly familiar one for me. I don't listen to commodity music, attend a commodity church, (want to) drive a commodity car, etc. I'm not sure why we should settle for vapid computers, devoid of even the pretence of innovation.

For vendors out there: innovation does pay. Really. More importantly, it's good for the soul (and for the long-term benefit of national economies). If we move toward the commodity model, we will eventually lose, because there's always someone that can do it cheaper. Only innovation can compete for the long-haul.

Stephen Walli on IP Lawsuits

One of the more intelligent (i.e., practical - intelligence generally is) takes on the hoopla surrounding SCO, Microsoft, and other litigation waiting to happen.... http://stephesblog.blogs.com/essays/CustomersIP.html

Best of Breed: Software/Hardware

I'm rethinking my post below on Apple's new iWorks. It still applies, but it has caused me to think about the software I use most on my computer....

Hardware -
**Apple (PowerBook G4 - this is what we'll use in heaven)
**Netgear wireless router (I used to work closely with Netgear - they make the best equipment)

Software -

**Office Suite - Microsoft Office (v 2004) (Yes, I use OO.o, as well, but it's simply not as nice to use.)
**Browser - Safari (w/ occasional use of FireFox for Novell pages that don't like Safari)
**Email - Entourage (part of Microsoft Office - a great program, and much better than Apple's Mail)
**P2P - Limewire (Open source)
**IRC - Colloquy (Open source, I believe)
**RSS newsreader, chat (Adium), RAR utility (UnrarX), Handbrake, and just about every other small utility (of which I use many) - Open source apps

Looking this over, I use open source where it fits the development community best - infrastructure (OS-X is built on BSD), browsing (Safari is based on an open source browser), and the various file-stealing/etc. utilities. These are great apps/software, because they fit the development community well. There's a match.

The open source community is less adept with PIM suites tied into my messaging - apparently, integrated calendar/address book/etc. simply isn't as important. At least, not to have it look good while also functioning well. And they're really not good at all with an office suite, because developers have little use for one. (They make great text editors, on the other hand, because this app actually matters for code creation.) OpenOffice, developed 95% by Sun (with the remainder being done by Novell and others, with some outside involvement), is hardly an open source project. It's good software, but not great, because it lacks the single-minded commitment of either a community or a company.

So, to answer Jason's comment below (on "The Curse of the Unexceptional"), maybe open source will continue to permeate the enterprise...from two different directions: bottom-up (infrastructure) and top-down (users bringing in free/open source utilities for file-sharing, converting files from .mpg to .mov and the like, etc.). To me, this doesn't mean open source is less relevant. It's certainly not a deprecation of the open source development community. Rather, it's an acknowledgement of the areas of software most likely to be done well by the open source development community.

Building for the Long Term

Still reading Rising Tide, the account of Procter & Gamble's rise to the top of the consumer products heap. Something that struck me yesterday is how deliberate the company has always been (indeed, how all of the enduring companies - mentioned in an earlier posting - have been) in its growth. They built business plans that looked out 5-10 years, and anticipated it taking that long to capture a market.

Contrast this with the technology industry today. We smugly talk about how technology changes so fast that we hardly know where we'll be tomorrow, much less five years from now. We congratulate ourselves on how innovative we are - all the time, now, HURRY!

What a load of crap. 10 years later, we're still using the same operating system, despite some changes. We're still using the same Office suite. ERP, databases, etc. Not much has changed.

In fact, very little changes. We have a few big "paradigm shifts," to use Kuhn's phrase, like the Internet. But that's the exception. Web services/SOA will be another, I'm convinced, as is/will be open source. But what's impressive in these "fast moving" changes is how slow they move. I first got involved with open source (Cobalt, to be precise) in 1998. Nearly seven years later, not a lot has changed, except for the acceptance of Linux. We're still in the opening scenes of open source's rise, and on the first frame of SOA.

But it will take a while, which is why we, as companies in technology, need to build for the long haul, unless we want to be one-hit wonders. Google gets this. I think Red Hat does, too (though I continue to doubt their longevity so long as they fixate on the operating system/infrastructure, as I mentioned in a previous post). Microsoft lives it.

To be a centennial company (around for 100 years), a company has to think beyond quarterly profits, and toward both entering/capturing markets and building them. Because nothing moves as fast as we'd like (and technology doesn't move as fast as we think), we need to take a profits-driven, deliberate approach to our businesses. And, as I'm learning from history, the best companies innovate, and then market those innovations extensively to help customers understand why those innovations matter.

For Novell right now, this means that the company needs to bring to our Linux story deep and abiding innovation. We haven't done this yet - nor has anyone else. An opportunity lays in wait - we just need to figure out what it is, which understanding will only come through extensive interaction with customers (and with familiarity with the open source community).

The same is true for any company. Even Dell. Dell's innovation, arguably, is its distribution model, but being cheaper (and having somewhat crappy hardware - the stuff breaks constantly) will not grant it centennial life. Only innovation and marketing will do that.

We need more innovation in the technology industry. We really don't have much. We barely use the Internet. (Why does it still feel like a DOS experience, when the desktop has moved to a rich Windows (or even richer, OS-X) interface?) We're only lightly touching on open source's promise. Vendors need to start hiring more buyers into their ranks....

Regardless, centennial companies build for the long haul, and ignore short-term distractions. More like Google, less like [insert your company's name here].

Apple Not Always Better....

I got home late last night, and installed iWork (Apple's new "productivity" suite) first thing this morning. What a disappointment. I'm not sure what I expected - Microsoft Office compatibility, for one - but it hasn't met my expectations. It feels weak, somehow, like it's for making cute newsletters, and little else.

And, frankly, that's probably all it is supposed to do. The worst of the Apple mentality, packaged and sold for $99....

Even the compatibility with Word is weak (i.e., the .doc format compatibility). Something that OpenOffice picks up quite well (like tracked changes - it's actually amazing how well OpenOffice does on this score), Apple's Pages stinks at. In fact, it doesn't even try.

So, I guess it's a decent product for someone who uses Microsoft Works (or Apple's equivalent), but it's not for anyone else.
Keynote, the PowerPoint equivalent, is a little better, though it, too, seems to trade off functionality for glitz, and not enough glitz to justify the tradeoff.

Why does Apple beat Microsoft in multimedia and operating system software, kill the PC manufacturers in hardware, and fail miserably in productivity software for the office worker (it excels in the produtivity software made for "creative types," e.g., Final Cut Pro, etc.)? This isn't a product I'd even recommend for my parents, casual Microsoft Office users. No, I'd put them on OpenOffice first, because it does a better job of tackling the best features in Microsoft Office.

Not to say OpenOffice is perfect. It's not. It's still clunky, slow, and imperfect with Microsoft Office file compatibility. (Plus, it infuriates me that it continues to lack streamlined video support - a mainstay of my presentations.) But it's definitely better than this lightweight competitor Apple unfortunately sent to market. Repent, Apple, repent.

Brand Building - Tech Stinks at It

In the middle of a book on Procter & Gamble (Rising Tide), and I’ve been impressed by how many companies that kickstarted in the 1870s timeframe remain with us today: Heinz, P&G, Hershey, Colgate, Anheuser-Busch, Kelloggs, Campbell’s, etc. It’s amazing that such brands persist when our modern economy can’t seem to hold a trend for more than a few years. This is even more pronounced in technology.

I wonder, however, if we’re not at an inflection point where the great brands of technology will emerge (and persist)?

What accounts for the rise of the brand in the late 19th century? Several things, in my view. The 1870s was a time of dramatic change in the US market: the railroad created a national market for the first first. Industrialization altered forever the economics of manufacturing, enabling mass markets.

In similar manner, the Internet truly is changing everything. National economies are being squeezed together through fiber, removing physical barriers to product delivery (analogous to the railroad). I wonder if this means that Amazon, Google, and other early, strong movers on the Net will be with us 100 years from now?

If they do, it will be because they provide service, not infrastructure. Today’s top infrastructure companies (e.g., Red Hat, BEA, etc.) won’t be with us 10 years from now, much less 100. It’s not because they’re not great companies, but rather because they are niche players in a much bigger market: the market for information. They may enable information, but the enduring brands will be those that find and deliver information. (For this reason, IBM Global Services will carry IBM forward – it’s hardware and middleware business will not.)

The Curse of the Unexceptional

It's frustrating to see how stagnant enterprise technology has become. While the consumer space sees real innovation like the iPod, Sling Media's SlingBox, and the Jawbone headset, enterprise buyers get...cheaper operating systems (a la Linux). Can't we do any better than this?

Very few companies are truly doing anything worthwhile today:

Dell – Manufacturing and distribution excellence
Apple – Design excellence
Microsoft – Business productivity excellence
Google - Search excellence

Much of the rest is a void of wasted opportunity. Why?

The law might be part of it. While not an enterprise application (though most of it happens while people are at work), p2p offers a myriad of exciting ways to distribute content. But the MPAA and RIAA are intent on killing it. (Fools that they be.) The law also crimps some of the more aggressive uses of open source technology and development communities.

But the law, easy scapegoat though it may be, is not the biggest problem. I think the biggest problem with enterprise IT today is that the people involved are mind-numbingly boring. When you get excited by the prospect of being able to monitor assets (e.g., computers) as they enter the enterprise and ultimately leave it, it's pretty clear that you need to juice up on your TiVo or something. That's boring (however necessary) technology.

What apps would I like to see? Collaboration/calendaring across companies. It's obnoxious that each messaging system is an island unto itself. I'd also like to see the desktop blur into the web. Some companies like Canyonbridge are in the middle of enabling this. Web services, buzz word of yore, actually do make for compelling uses within and between enterprises, including partners and suppliers. Virtualization is another interesting innovation. And, finally, on the UI front, I'm tired of an Internet experience (e.g., portals) that takes me back to DOS. Why is corporate IT so flat?

Frankly, this is where Microsoft has excelled. They make IT look so much better than their counterparts. Except Apple, of course, but Apple still has a lot of work to do to make itself relevant to enterprise buyers (except this one - I love my Powerbook G4). Aesthetics do matter - that's an innovation in its own right.

Coming full circle, I'm begging you - whoever you are - to please develop something innovative.

The Embedded Opportunity

MontaVista is sitting on a goldmine. I spent some time last week talking with Kelly Herrell (SVP, Strategic Operations), and I was impressed by how far the embedded open source world has come. MontaVista shows a focus that Lineo tried to reach in 2000-2002, but which the market kept inhibiting. MontaVista survived the crash, and has a single-minded focus on conquering the world of the mobile phone, both handsets and the backend teleco equipment. Any company that can effectively tap into the billions of devices that ship every year can have explosive growth. (OSBC2005 has a session devoted exclusively to this.)

I think they just might pull it off.

That's not to say that they'll do it alone, but I believe that focus, coupled with the right management team, can do wonders. MontaVista has both. Provided they can buck their historical tendency to treat partners and customers somewhat shoddily, the mobile phone market could be theirs to lose. (Btw, I think this means that they should partner with application enablers/providers like PalmSource, but that's another posting....)

Specifix is another company that continues to impress me. In their case, I keep having their model validated by market research, customer interaction, and such. It will be difficult for straight tools vendors to thrive in embedded - what's needed is more of an ASP-type service, whereby customers buy into a semi-standard platform (commercial Linux) with the ability to heavily modify it (so that it doesn't look like a standard Linux at all), and retain support for the modified core. This is what Specifix provides.

Regardless, people (especially VCs) still seem to miss the fact that the embedded market is potentially much, much bigger than the desktop market. If we've effectively abandoned the desktop to Microsoft, then why not shift to the next computing platform, the embedded device? Here, Linux shines, and is arguably a much better fit than Windows (or Symbian). All it needs now (speaking of handhelds for a minute) is apps, and the PalmSource move toward Linux mitigates much of this void.

Money is begging to be made in embedded. If only the VCs would start funding companies here, we'd see some real innovation, innovation that is almost completely missing in the enterprise world.