The Cost of “Free”

Moved to: The Cost of "Free"

Note: the comments for this post are still on this site below.

Comments

[SeanJA]

The cost of apache I am pretty sure, is far less than the cost of IIS... so is the cost of using PHP instead of some M$ brand programming language.

jQuery is opensource and free, so is Firefox which gives web designers far less headaches than the non-free Internet Explorer.

[Adam]

One of the great benefits of open source software is control. If we integrate an open source package into our product and then have an issue with it, we can debug it. We are not left at the mercy of the closed source vendor.
We currently use a rule engine from a very large company that does not work as documented and we are left implementing nasty workarounds as it is a black box and support is incredibly slow moving (measured in years!).
We chose Windward Reports because it was significantly cheaper than the product we initially implemented but still offered the functionality that we required. There was no equivalent open source solution.
Being a smaller company you are also able to react faster, and to date, our experiences with support have been very favourable.
This is the same marketing ploy that Microsoft uses. You pay more for it so it must be better, right? I got so fed up with Vista I now run Ubuntu at home.

[terry]

Yep good post. I especially liked this statement:
"Remember: Any company that has built a business model on an Open Source solution has to be making money somehow/somewhere – or they wouldn't be in business."
Their total financial incentive comes from support so usability and robustness are often the first things neglected in the development process. Being poor in these areas is actually a revenue generator when it comes to FOSS!!!
This not only costs a lot of time for developers to figure out and fix but it is even worse for users who have to deal with these impenetrable systems. It's just a nightmare all around. If you have more time than money then FOSS is a good fit but otherwise it isn't.

[Thomas]

You have a problem distinguishing OpenSource and free/cheap software.
In addition to that paying for something does not automatically solve all the points mentioned. (Think about the training needed for the new Ribbon UI...)

[Morne]

I don't agree with you at all. Out of personal experience, we've converted a number of the core software stacks in our organisation to open source with enormous cost savings over the last 3 years. This was done in a large enterprise environment. We've found stability of the open source software to be excellent and the support to be superior to what we get from the proprietary vendors due to the amazing open source communities. Most of the stacks that we switched were ifrastructure: thus OS, middleware, databases, monitoring systems, configuration management tools etc.

[kofno]

That's quite a strawman you've battered. Well done, you.

[Chris]

"Any company that has built a business model on an Open Source solution has to be making money somehow/somewhere – or they wouldn't be in business."

That is correct. They make money by selling services to implement the solution (or support it) instead of the selling the product itself.

An example of this is SilverStripe, a company who open-sourced their Content Management System (CMS). It is extremely robust, well supported, well documented, has an easy to use interface, and is continually developed by the company. They make money by implementing websites for people using their CMS. By open sourcing it, they get community input into the software which makes it a better product.

[Greg Strockbine]

Oy vey, someone better tell Google they goofed building their search engine on the open source Linux OS.

What were they thinking? Their business will never get off the ground.

Oh no, Google's Android OS is open source. Throw your cell phones away immediately!

wait, its worse. We have to tell all those FireFox users to stop using FireFox because its too hard to use. Oh no, even MS gives their browser away. Where can I find a browser I can hand over some hard earned cash for?

Worse yet, the whole internet is built on open source software.

We are all doomed. Turn off your computers, they might be infected with open source software.

[SeanJA]

Oh, better tell apple that they screwed up basing their code on parts of FreeBSD...

[keru]

Mmmm... your blog is powered by opensource/free software.

you should find a web platform that do not use thoses softwares. (but you won't find any)

[fernando trasviña]

definitely not agree, i have been using and making open source for years, sure i had to learn something, but I guarantee your developers too, using "free" or not. so I guess your developers are comparing the wrong solution, or they are just too lazy to learn something new. sure people needs to eat, but it should never be at the cost of crappy or overrated software.

[Israel]

Hi

First of all, I'm completely agree with keru comment.

I'm also agree with you in some ways. Open Source is in a very young age and its maturity is barely comparable with propieraty software.

I also think you are misunderstanding the terms Open Source and Freeware. Take a look at wikipedia ;)

[Serra]

This was the first article I read on your blog, and I was surprised at your comments so I skimmed the previous couple articles to see what else you had to say. I think that the commenter above is correct, that you may be confusing the "open source" philosophy with some free software you've had experience with.

In my experience, open source jives with an earlier comment you made about listening, since good ideas come from everywhere. They certainly do, which is why open source is such a powerful structure. It allows everyone to contribute, and when a software has potential the users see it, and because they can add functionality it can then surpass its funded (and fundamentally limited) competitors.

[Vosasola]

in my company is all opensource , linux , unix , glassfish , apache , mysql and not have any problem. You say this , since you point of view , and secure never your uses open source.

[toni]

I call it: "the cost of ignorance"

[Boris Smirnov]

I do not agree at all. Many worthwhile open source projects such as Drupal, Wordpress, Apache etc. have very active communities, more active then many proprietary products. Furthermore with proprietary software especially the very large enterprise kind, you can be essentially blackmailed into support contracts, next version updates, having to buy features. With open source costs center around implementation. And again, if the community is active there are also choice on who to pick for your needs in terms of development and customization.

[Charles]

"Sure, the initial investment is zero"

Not necessarily true. Who is going to implement the open source solution? The implementation is going to cost money regardless of whether or not is costs money to buy the software in the first place.

"but the long-term cost is most definitely not"

The same is true for proprietary/closed source solutions.

"The IT/development costs associated with difficult implementations and software lacking in usability are often astronomical"

The inference from this is that open source software is difficult to use and implement, and yet closed source software is not. There are difficult implementations in both open source and closed source solutions; just as there are simple solutions for both.

"support and service is either non-existent or very expensive and even documentation can be an added expense."

The same is true for proprietary/closed source solutions.

"The bottom line is that Open Source will never be the best product offering because there's no investment backing it."

This may be true for some open source solutions but it is not true for all open source solutions.

"A solution that is not continuously updated – and supported – is costing your business even more."

Not all closed source systems are continuously updated or supported either. especially if the vendor goes out of business. And it still costs you money to get those updates and support.

"A poor user interface alone will cost thousands per year in lost productivity and IT expense."

This is true. But it is not true that all open source software has a poor user interface, just as it is not true that all close source software has an easy to use user interface.

"And any solution that requires you to have training to use it is an endless money drain."

Are you saying closed source solutions don't need training? I wonder why there are so many training programmes for closed source software then? And just look at what Microsoft did with Office 2007 and their new ribbon menu system. That cost a lot of productivity (and additional training) as people tried to find stuff in the new menu system.

"Every time someone leaves or you need to add another user, it's going to cost you."

Once again, this is not exclusive to open source software.

"Remember: Any company that has built a business model on an Open Source solution has to be making money somehow/somewhere – or they wouldn't be in business."

That's right; they make money by selling services (e.g. training, support, implementation of said product) instead of for the product itself.

"Take a close look at "free". It's costing more than you realize."

I see nothing in your post that cannot also apply to closed source software.