Support, not software
Salesforce. com has made its name with its No Software! slogan. but while the company doesn't sell software, per se, its business model is all about software.
Not so open source. Open source, whatever the licensing mechanism, is really about support at the end of the day. This was made very clear to me this morning when meeting with a financial services company.
A few years ago they were having massive problems with their proprietary app server. The worst part about it, as they told me, was that it was impossible to get any help by calling support. they eventually had visits from senior management in the company, but while gratifying, it didn't solve their problem.
So they turned to JBoss. Not only was the software better (JBoss pays for R&D, not sales people), the customer got fantastic support. When they logged support issues, the engineers who had written the code were the ones answering the phone. This customer has been very happy with JBoss, which happiness has translated into opportunities for other open source companies like mine.
Marc Benioff got part of the way to software nirvana when he rid his customers of the hassle of software installation. But he did nothing to focus the software business on the highest customer value: support.
Software is not the enemy. Hollow sales promises and shallow support are. These issues don't go away with 'software as a service' (SaaS).
They do with open source.
Open source is a better model for customers. Period.
[Btw, please be impressed that I typed this entire post (and the last one) on my Treo while sitting on the tarmac at JFK....]
2 comments:
Support is the better model for customers when there is support available. While there are a number of large companies who do quite well with this model I would venture that a vast majority of open source software projects (95%+) have no support whatsoever.
Perhaps there is a business model in there where a company seeks out popular but poorly supported open source projects, employs knowledgable contributors (if any), and sells its branded package... rinse... repeat.
Lets throw another wrinkle in there and flip that assertion on its head. While great for the customers what about the developers behind the project. Surely all the contributors to Linux aren't employed by Red Hat, or Novell, or IBM. How can a developer be assured that they will be compensated for their efforts? Providing an update for the common good does go a long way - however, it doesn't pay for the rent.
Open source is good for customers (sometimes). But what about developers?
Matthew Reinbold
BloomBurst.com
“Hollow sales promises and shallow support” are absolutely the enemy of business success. Hence the criticality for open source software companies in all parts of the ecosystem to provide that customer value, lest they fall victim to the decries of their commercial counterparts. The difference in the OSS space; however, is that no one vendor needs to be all things to everyone. As long as the holistic model holds together (development, channels/distribution, and support), lasting customer value can be created and revenue (and profit) realized by the players. The open source framework certainly allows this to happen.
[Yes, impressed with anyone who can compose any somewhat lengthy, grammatically correct posting on a Treo. I’ve had my 700w for several months and still haven’t mastered the art of thumb typing.]
Anthony Gold, Unisys Corporation
Post a Comment